M/S. Sona Enterprise vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sona Enterprise, assails an order dated July 2, 2024, passed by respondent No. 3, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of natural justice. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 4 issued a recovery notice dated March 25, 2026, for disputed tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner sought interim protection from coercive recovery pending the filing of a statutory appeal. The State-respondents were initially unrepresented but later appeared through learned counsel.
Held
The Court held that the order impugned dated July 2, 2024, is an appealable order and an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT, Kolkata, under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, within four weeks from the date of the order. The period during which the writ petition remained pending shall be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. In the interim, the respondent authorities are restrained from taking any coercive action or giving effect to the recovery notice dated March 25, 2026, until the disposal of the appeal by the GSTAT. The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to prefer the appeal within the stipulated four weeks, the GSTAT is at liberty to take necessary steps. The entire exercise by the GSTAT is to be completed on or before September 30, 2026. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from coercive recovery pending the filing of a statutory appeal against the order dated July 2, 2024, passed by respondent No. 3? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to interim protection from coercive recovery measures while pursuing their statutory remedy. They brought to the court's attention the recovery notice issued during the pendency of the writ petition, highlighting the need for such protection. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or State respondents regarding the entitlement to interim protection. However, their engagement in the matter implies a defense against the petitioner's claims.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
26 14Ct. No.10 Sws.M
WPA 6635 of 2025
M/s. Sona Enterprise vs. Union of India&Ors.
Mr. Tarun Chatterjee Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. SoumyaSankarChini ….for the petitioner
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee …for the CGST
Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ld. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal ….for the State-respondents
Notwithstanding due service, the State-respondent remains unrepresented in Court today.
Ms. Manju Agarwal, learned Additional Government Pleader along with Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, learned advocate and Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, learned advocates are engaged in this matter on behalf of the State. Their appearances be accordingly regularized from the office of the Legal Remembrancer.
A copy of the writ petition has already been served upon the State-respondents in Court today.
The core issue involved herein as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from coercive recovery pending filing of such statutory appeal.
2
The petitioner assails the order impugned dated 2.7.2024 passed by respondent No.3 as being illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 4 has issued a recovery notice dated 25th March, 2026 seeking to recover the disputed tax, interest penalty. The same has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit.
Since the order impugned dated 02.07.2024 is an appealable order and there is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy available, the petitioner is directed to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT, Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017 within a period of four weeks from date. The period during which the writ petition has remained pending shall be excluded for computing limitation.
In the meantime, the respondent authorities are restrained from taking any coercive action or give any effect to the recovery notice dated 25th March, 2026 till the disposal of the appeal before the GSTAT.
It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner fails to prefer an appeal within four weeks from
3 date, liberty is granted to the GSTAT to take necessary steps, in accordance with law.
Needless to mention that the entire exercise shall be completed by the GSTAT on or before 30th September, 2026. 11. With the above observation, and direction the writ petition is disposed of.
(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.