Priya Chatterjee vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Original PDF →
WPA/13795/2025HC CalcuttaGSTCNR WBCHCA028329202523 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Priya Chatterjee, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Consequently, the petitioner sought the transfer of the instant writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner requested four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. It was also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for the computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Held

The Court noted the submission of the petitioner that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Based on this, the Court allowed the petitioner's request to transfer the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of filing an appeal. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also accepted the petitioner's plea that the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, given its functional status, for filing an appeal under 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 computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the matter should be adjudicated by it. The petitioner sought time to file an appeal and requested condonation of delay by excluding the pendency period of the writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State-respondent regarding the transfer or limitation period.

Sections Cited

Section 112

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

15 23.6.2026 Ct. No. 10

AB In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side Constitutional Writ Juri iction

WPA 13795 of 2025

Priya Chatterjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. S. A. Ahmed

… for the petitioner

Mr. Nikunj Berlia

Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee

Mr. Samarjit Roy Chowdhury

Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal

… for the State-respondent

1.

Petitioners submit 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 writ petition has been pending be executed for computing limitation.

2.

With the above observation, 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.