Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charges And Ors

Held

The Court held that while a writ petition may not ordinarily be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the petitioner should not be rendered remediless. Following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in the petitioner's own case (WPA 25558 of 2024), the Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall hear the appeal on merits. This is subject to the petitioner fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the previous order, which include paying costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee and making a pre-deposit of 10 percent of the tax in dispute. Upon compliance, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek the release of any attachment order from the appellate authority. The Court found no reason to deviate from the view taken in the earlier, similar case.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam, assails an order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charge. The petitioner acknowledges that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the said Act. However, he was unable to file an appeal due to serious indisposition and dire financial straits, which prevented him from meeting the pre-deposit requirement. The petitioner relies on a previous order dated September 11, 2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in a similar writ petition concerning another order of the same date and under the same section, which granted relief to the petitioner in his own case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to appeal against the order dated November 16, 2022, passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, despite the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the said Act, considering his inability to comply with the pre-deposit requirement due to financial hardship and indisposition. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that while the statutory appeal remedy exists, he was prevented from availing it due to severe financial constraints and ill health, which made the pre-deposit requirement insurmountable. He relied on a previous order of a Coordinate Bench in his own case (WPA 25558 of 2024) which, despite acknowledging the writ petition's entertainability, directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits under specific conditions regarding pre-deposit and costs, especially given the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State/Revenue.