Anis Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner , State Taxes, Strand Road Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Anis Patel, filed a writ petition (WPA 26822 of 2024) before the Calcutta High Court. The writ petition was dismissed for default on April 16, 2026, due to the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner subsequently filed an application (CAN 1 of 2026) seeking to recall this dismissal order, asserting that the non-appearance was for bonafide reasons. The Court was satisfied with the reasons provided and allowed the restoration application, reinstating the writ petition. The petitioner then requested the transfer of the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) as it is now functional, and sought 12 weeks to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the non-appearance of their learned counsel on April 16, 2026. Consequently, the restoration application (CAN 1 of 2026) was allowed, and the writ petition (WPA 26822 of 2024) was restored to its original file and number. The Court also accepted the petitioner's submission that the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) as it is now functional. The Court granted the petitioner 12 weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Furthermore, the Court directed that the period during which the writ petition had remained pending would be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the non-appearance of their learned counsel on April 16, 2026, warranting the recall of the dismissal order? 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) now that it is functional? 3. Whether the petitioner should be granted 12 weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017? 4. Whether the period during which the writ petition remained pending should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-appearance of their counsel was not deliberate or due to laches but for bonafide reasons, as detailed in the restoration application. They further submitted that since the Appellate Tribunal is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. The petitioner requested 12 weeks to file an appeal and for the pending period of the writ petition to be excluded for limitation calculations. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge & Ors., or the CGST authorities regarding the restoration application or the transfer/appeal request.