Dee Gee Saw And Metal Works Private Limited And Anr vs. The Senior Joint Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, GST, Behala Circle And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Dee Gee Saw and Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The respondents are the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, GST, Behala Circle & Ors. The petitioners' primary submission was that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the instant writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. They 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 be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioners' submission that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to allow the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the designated appellate authority. The Court accepted the petitioners' request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and granted them four weeks' time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 / WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also agreed to exclude the period during which the writ petition was pending for the computation of the limitation period for filing the appeal. The reasoning is based on the availability of a statutory appellate remedy and the principle of directing parties to the appropriate forum. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory appellate tribunal becomes functional, writ petitions challenging orders appealable before it should ordinarily be directed to that tribunal, with appropriate directions regarding limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, given its constitution and functionality, 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 the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, making it the appropriate forum for their grievance. They relied on the principle that when an alternative appellate remedy becomes available, a writ petition may be transferred or dismissed to allow recourse to that remedy. They specifically sought time to file an appeal under Section 112 and requested exclusion of the pendency period for limitation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State respondents.