M/S. Patton International Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Patton International Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner submitted that since the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) has been constituted and is functional, the instant writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate 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. They also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Held

The Court held that given the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the writ petition should be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks' time to file the appeal. While the judgment does not explicitly state the reasoning for excluding the period of pendency for limitation, it implicitly allows the petitioner's request by granting them time to file the appeal and disposing of the writ petition on this basis. The operative direction is to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal given its functional status? (Question of procedure) 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 an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the matter should be heard by the Tribunal. They requested time to file an appeal and sought exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes, implying that the pendency of the writ petition should not prejudice their right to appeal due to time bar. The petitioner relied on the principle that time spent pursuing a remedy in the wrong forum should be condoned for filing in the correct forum. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and Ors.).