Ratan Singh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of with the observation that the petitioner seeks 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. The Court implicitly accepted the petitioner's request regarding the exclusion of the pendency period for limitation by allowing the transfer and time to file the appeal. The specific reasoning for excluding the limitation period is not detailed, but the operative direction reflects this acceptance. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Ratan Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner's primary submission was that since the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) has been constituted and is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to the Tribunal. 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. Additionally, the petitioner requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) given its functional status, as per Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT? The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be transferred to the GSTAT as it is now functional. They relied on the availability of the appellate mechanism to seek a transfer and requested time to file an appeal. The petitioner also sought exclusion of the pendency period of the writ petition for limitation purposes. The revenue or State's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 ct no. 10 Sl. 08 AGM
WPA 14381 of 2026
Ratan Singh -Versus- The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Ankan Das. Ms. Payel Das. …for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganga Prosad Mukherjee.
… for the Union of India.
Mr. S. N. Dutta.
… for the respondent no.
Mrs. Manju Agarwal. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal.
… For the State.
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.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, J.)
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.