Mrinal Chakraborty vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that once the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017 and made the mandatory pre-deposit in terms of Section 107(6), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount of disputed tax should be deemed to have been stayed in terms of Section 107(7) of the Act of 2017. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authorities to immediately lift the attachment and declared the garnishee notice issued to the petitioner's bank to be of no effect. The Court also noted that the respondents-WBGST Authorities would be guided by the decision of the appellate authority on the petitioner's appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's appeal or the application for condonation of delay, as these would be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Mrinal Chakraborty, filed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary action of the respondents-SGST Authorities in issuing a garnishee notice to his bank. The petitioner had filed an appeal against an adjudication order dated July 8, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, and had made the mandatory pre-deposit as per Section 107(6) of the Act. Despite this, the WBGST Authorities issued a garnishee notice on October 17, 2025, leading the petitioner's bank to mark a lien on Rs. 39,97,247/- in his account. The petitioner was informed of this lien by a notice dated November 20, 2025. The respondents stated the garnishee notice was issued on November 18, 2025, the same day the appeal was filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of a garnishee notice by the respondents-SGST Authorities is arbitrary and illegal when the petitioner has filed an appeal against the adjudication order and made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the garnishee notice was arbitrary and illegal because an appeal had been filed and the mandatory pre-deposit made. They relied on the fact that upon making the pre-deposit, recovery proceedings for the balance amount should be stayed. Revenue's contention: The respondents-WBGST Authorities argued that the garnishee notice was issued on November 18, 2025, which was the same date the petitioner filed the appeal, and therefore, their action could not be faulted. They did not explicitly cite any provisions or precedents in support of this argument.