M/S. Subhransu Oversies vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication and that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional. The petitioner's counsel tendered a letter of withdrawal indicating the client's wish not to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that they intend to pursue the statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court allowed the petitioner four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Subhransu Oversies, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order of adjudication. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of adjudication. The petitioner stated that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional and sought to pursue the statutory remedy available. The petitioner requested the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner has already availed of the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of adjudication. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, they wish to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy. They sought the transfer of the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and requested four weeks' time to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with a prayer for exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes. Revenue/State's argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the State.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
04 17.7.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 23598 of 2025
M/s. Subhransu Oversies -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors
Mr. Pradip Kumar Das. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee. Mr. A. Das.
…For the Petitioner.
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee. Ms. Manasi Mukherjee.
… For the State.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has tendered a letter of withdrawal dated June 16, 2026 from which it transpires that his client does not wish to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition since during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication.
Since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the petitioner seeks to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy.
The written instruction given by the petitioner to his learned advocate be taken on record.
The petitioner further submits that since the Appellate Tribunal has already been constituted and is functional, the instant writ petition be transferred to the Appellate
2 Tribunal and seeks four wee
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.