Pintu Sinha vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax, Shibpur Div. Howrah, CGST And Central Excise Commis. And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Pintu Sinha, has filed a writ petition (WPA 2664 of 2024) before the High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side. The respondents include the Superintendent of Central Tax, Shibpur Division, and others, including the Union of India. The petitioner is seeking some relief from the court. The current proceedings involve the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 4, which has been taken on record. The petitioner's counsel sought and was granted an extension of time to file an affidavit-in-reply. The court has directed the petitioner to file the affidavit-in-reply within three weeks and serve a copy on the respondents in advance. The matter is scheduled to appear in the Monthly List of December 2026.

Held

The Court has not yet delivered a substantive judgment on the merits of the case. The excerpt details only procedural directions. The Court has allowed the petitioner's request for an extension of time to file an affidavit-in-reply, directing that it be filed within three weeks from the date of the order. This indicates that the Court is permitting the petitioner to further present their case. The Court has also directed that a copy of the affidavit-in-reply be served upon the respondents in advance. The matter has been adjourned to the Monthly List of December 2026 for further hearing. No findings on any substantive legal issues have been made, and therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this procedural order. No specific relief has been granted beyond the procedural extension.

Key Issues

The specific legal questions before the Court are not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt. However, the procedural developments indicate that the petitioner is seeking to challenge an action or order by the CGST authorities and is in the process of filing a reply to the respondents' opposition. The core issue revolves around the petitioner's grievance against the CGST authority and the subsequent legal proceedings initiated through this writ petition. The petitioner's arguments, if any, are not detailed, but their request for an extension to file an affidavit-in-reply suggests they intend to present their case further. The respondents, represented by the CGST Authority and the Union of India, have filed an affidavit-in-opposition, indicating they are defending their position. The specific provisions of the GST law or circulars that form the basis of the dispute are not mentioned in this excerpt.