Powertech Sales Service vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bowbazar Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Powertech Sales & Service, filed an application (CAN 2 of 2026) seeking modification and/or clarification of an earlier order dated 24th September, 2024, passed in WPA 20433 of 2024. The earlier order had permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent authorities and Rs. 25,000/- to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within three weeks. The petitioner submitted receipts indicating payment to the State Legal Services Authority on 23rd October, 2024, and payment to the respondent authorities via Form GST DRC 03 on 25th August, 2025. The petitioner acknowledged a slight delay in these payments but asserted that compliance had been made.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had complied with the directions of the order dated 24th September, 2024, even though there was a slight delay in making the payments. The Court observed that an appeal had already been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the appellate authority should proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits, in accordance with the law. The application, CAN 2 of 2026, was disposed of with these observations and directions. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court addressed the core request for the appellate authority to hear the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, notwithstanding a slight delay in complying with the Court's previous order regarding payment of amounts. The petitioner argued that since the directions in the order dated 24th September, 2024, had been complied with, albeit belatedly, the appellate authority should be directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits. The petitioner relied on the receipts demonstrating payment to both the respondent authorities and the State Legal Services Authority. The State respondents, through their learned advocate, acknowledged that the petitioner had indeed complied with the Court's directions, though belatedly.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
M/L 2220 06.03.2026 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE In Powertech Sales & Service Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge & Ors.
Mr. Debanuj Basu Thakur
… For the applicant/petitioner
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
In re: CAN 2 of 2026
Leave is granted to the advocate-on-record of the applicant/petitioner to correct the prayer portion by adding the following line in continuation of prayer (a) “by modifying and/or clarifying the order dated 24th September, 2024 passed in WPA 20433 of 2024”, in course of this day.
The present application has in effect been filed for modification and/or clarification of the order dated 24th September, 2024. By the aforesaid order, this Court noting that the Appellate Tribunal Under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 is yet to be constituted, had permitted the petitioner to apply before the appellate authority subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner In with the respondent authorities and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within a period of three weeks from date.
Learned advocate for the applicant/petitioner has relied on the receipt issued by the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal dated 23rd October, 2024, and the payment made by the petitioner with the respondents in Form GST DRC 03 dated 25th August, 2025 would submit that there was a slight delay in making payment of the aforesaid amount both to the respondents as also to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal. It is submitted that the payment has, however, been made. The learned advocate for the applicant/petitioner would insist since the applicant/petitioner has already complied with the direction contained in the order dated 24th September, 2024, though belatedly the appellate authority should be directed to hear out and dispose of the appeal.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents. He acknowledges the fact that the applicant/petitioner, though belatedly has complied with the direction passed by this Court.
Having regard thereto and since an appeal has already been filed by the applicant/petitioner, I am of the view that the appellate authority should hear out and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law.
In
With the above observations and directions, the application, being CAN 2 of 2026 is disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, 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.