M/S. Gearup Motor Parts vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's submission of a letter of withdrawal and the stated intention to pursue the statutory remedy before the now-functional Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as non-prosecution. However, the Court also observed the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and seek time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with a request for exclusion of the pending period for limitation. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, implying that the petitioner is free to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal as stated.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gearup Motor Parts, filed a writ petition challenging an order of adjudication passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner subsequently submitted a letter of withdrawal dated June 16, 2026, indicating a desire not to proceed with the writ petition. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the subject matter of the writ pertained to an order of adjudication, and since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the petitioner intended to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy before it. The petitioner sought to transfer the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and requested four weeks' time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with a request to exclude the period the petition was pending for limitation computation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as non-prosecution, given the petitioner's withdrawal. (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, and if so, whether the period of pendency should be excluded for computing limitation for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Petitioner: Submitted a letter of withdrawal as the Appellate Tribunal is now functional and they wish to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. Requested transfer of the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and four weeks' time to file an appeal, seeking exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes. State: No specific arguments recorded from the State's side in the provided judgment excerpt.