H.N.K. Decorations vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, H. N. K. Decoration, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner's primary submission was that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been constituted and is functional. Consequently, the petitioner sought to transfer the present writ petition to the GSTAT, Kolkata, to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner requested four weeks' time to file the appeal and sought exclusion of the period during which the writ petition was pending for the computation of limitation.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Based on this, the Court agreed with the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT, Kolkata, under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Crucially, the Court also directed that 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 the appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, given its functional status? 2. 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? The petitioner argued that since the GSTAT is now functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it to enable the filing of a statutory appeal. They relied on the principle that when a statutory forum becomes available, a writ petition pending before a High Court may be directed to be heard by that forum, with appropriate directions regarding limitation. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 ct no. 10 Sl. 01 AGM
WPA 21242 of 2023
H. N. K. Decoration -Versus- The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, (South Bench), Head Quarters and Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta. …for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia. Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma.
… for the Union of India.
Mrs. Manju Agarwal. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal.
… For the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, learned advocates are engaged in this matter. Their appearances be accordingly regularized from the office of the Legal Remembrancer.
Petitioner submits that since the Appellate Tribunal has already been constituted, and is functional the instant writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and seeks four weeks time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The period during which the petition has been pending be excluded for computing limitation.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
2
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, J.)
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.