M/S. Cosyn Limited vs. Senior Joint Commissioner Of Revenue And Ors.

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they do not wish to proceed with the writ petition as the subject matter relates to an adjudication order and the Appellate Tribunal is now functional. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as 'non-prosecution'. The Court also allowed the petitioner's request to pursue the statutory remedy before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, granting them four weeks to file the appeal. The Court further observed that the period during which the writ petition was pending would be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT. The written instructions from the petitioner to their advocate were taken on record. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Cosyn Limited, filed a writ petition (W.P.A. 9120 of 2023) before the Calcutta High Court challenging an adjudication order passed by the appellate authority. The respondent was the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Kolkata South Circle, and others. The petitioner, through their learned advocate, tendered a letter of withdrawal dated 23.6.2026. The reason for withdrawal was that the subject matter of the writ petition pertained to an adjudication order, and since the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is now functional, the petitioner wished to pursue the statutory remedy available before it. The petitioner sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as non-prosecution, given the petitioner's submission that they do not wish to proceed with the matter. 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) for adjudication as a statutory appeal. 3. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT, as provided under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, they wish to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy before it. They requested the writ petition be transferred to the GSTAT and sought four weeks to file an appeal. They also requested exclusion of the pendency period of the writ petition for limitation purposes. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State. However, the Court's order implies acceptance of the petitioner's submissions regarding withdrawal and pursuing the statutory remedy.