Sabiha Sultana, Proprietor Of M/S. Nafis Tanning Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Ballygunge Charge And Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Nafis Tanning Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 17, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner contended that their representative had appeared before the proper officer and submitted relevant documents, which were allegedly not considered. The petitioner claimed to have filed a response on December 16, 2024, which was also not taken into account. The respondents argued that since a determination had been made under Section 73, an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained because an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal was available to the petitioner. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner might have grievances against the determination made under Section 73, but these grievances should be addressed through the statutory appellate process rather than a writ petition. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal under the Act was yet to be constituted. Despite dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy, the Court directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority should hear the appeal on merits, subject to compliance with other formalities. This direction was given to ensure the petitioner was not rendered remediless.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, when an alternative remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their representative had appeared and submitted documents, which were not considered by the proper officer, thus vitiating the order. They implied that the writ petition was maintainable due to this alleged non-consideration. Revenue's contention: The respondents argued that since a determination under Section 73 had been made, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ML - 66 03.09.2025 D. Hira Ct No. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 6156 of 2025
M/s. Nafis Tanning Industries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, & Anr.
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui,
Ms. Hera Nafis,
Mr. D. Chaudhuri.
… for the petitioner
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,
Mr. Saptak Sanyal.
.. for the State
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia, challenging an order dated 17th December, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. 2. Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner. By drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 17th December, 2024 would submit that the petitioner’s representative had duly appeared before the proper officer and had filed all relevant documents. Such documents have not been considered by the proper officer.
According to the petitioner, though, the petitioner had filed a response on 16th December, 2024, such response was not considered by the proper
2 officer while disposing of the writ petition.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties I find that the proper officer has decided on the show-cause by a detailed order. The petitioner may have grievance against the determination, however, such grievance, in my view, cannot form subject matter of challenge in a writ petition.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand would submit that since a determination has already been made under Section 73 of the said Act, the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In such view of the matter, when efficacious alternative remedy is available, this Court should not entertain the present writ petition.
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Chakraborty, since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain this writ petition.
In view thereof, the writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly fails. The above order shall, however, not stand in the way of the
3 petitioner to apply before the Appellate Authority, if so advised, especially, having regard to the fact that the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act is yet to be constituted.
Since, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless, I am of the view, in the event any appeal is filed within a period of 4 weeks from date, the appellate authority shall hear out such appeal on merits subject to compliance of other formalities.
Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for be made over to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(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.