Arup Chatterjee vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah And Kadamtala Charges And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Chatterjee, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12th March, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Howrah & Kadamtala Charge. The order cancelled the petitioner's GST registration on the grounds that it was obtained by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, as provided under Section 29(2)(e) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The writ petition was filed on 2nd May, 2025. The State authorities were represented by Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty and Mr. Saptak Sanyal, while the petitioner was represented by Ms. Rita Mukherjee, Mr. Abhijat Das, Ms. Aratrika Roy, and Mr. Anirban Chatterjee.

Held

The Court held that an appellate remedy has been provided for under the Act. Consequently, it was deemed prudent not to entertain the writ petition directly. However, noting that the writ petition was filed on 2nd May, 2025, the Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal from the order of cancellation of registration to the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits as expeditiously as possible. This disposal should preferably be within a period of twelve weeks from the date of filing of such appeal, subject to the petitioner complying with all other necessary formalities. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation order itself, but rather on the procedural path for challenging it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative appellate remedy is available under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed due to the urgency of the matter and the need for expeditious resolution. The State contended that the impugned order of cancellation of registration was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The State likely relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when statutory remedies are available, to avoid bypassing the prescribed appellate process. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond the existence of the appellate remedy.