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

Held

The Court held that while there is generally no scope to entertain a writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy exists, the petitioner should not be rendered remediless. Following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in the petitioner's own prior case (WPA 25558 of 2024), the Court directed that the appeal should be heard on merits. The appellate authority is to ascertain if a sum exceeding 10% of the tax in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner. If so, the appeal is to be heard without insisting on any further pre-deposit. If not, the appellate authority shall accept a pre-deposit of 10% of the tax in dispute and then hear the appeal on merits. The petitioner was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, as in the previous order. Upon payment of costs and fulfillment of the pre-deposit condition (if any), the petitioner can seek release of any attachment order from the appellate authority. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

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. The petitioner acknowledges that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the Act but states that he could not file an appeal due to serious indisposition and dire financial straits, which prevented him from making the required pre-deposit. The petitioner relies on a previous order dated September 11, 2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench in his own case (WPA 25558 of 2024), which dealt with a similar order of the same date passed under Section 74.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, given the petitioner's financial constraints and indisposition? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that while an appeal is normally the recourse, his inability to make the pre-deposit due to financial hardship and illness necessitates entertaining the writ petition. He relies on a previous order of a Coordinate Bench in his own case (WPA 25558 of 2024) which, despite noting no scope for a writ petition, provided a path for appeal by modifying pre-deposit requirements. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records that the State's advocate, Mr. Chakraborty, did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the recovery of a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute.