Dinesh Brothers PVT LTD vs. Suptd Of Central Tax Range I Burrabazar Division And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Brothers Private Limited, filed an intra-Court appeal against an interim order dated May 14, 2025, passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 9494 of 2025. The original writ petition challenged an order dated December 9, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that an appeal against this order lies with the Appellate Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted. The learned Single Bench had entertained the writ petition and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the Act as a condition for interim relief.

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Bench was justified in entertaining the writ petition due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, which rendered the statutory remedy unavailable. The Court found no fault with the interim order and direction issued by the learned Single Bench. The imposition of a condition to deposit 10% of the disputed tax in addition to the amount already deposited under Section 107(6) was considered not onerous. The Court reasoned that pre-deposit is a mandatory requirement for filing a statutory appeal, and the learned Single Bench exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing this condition. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Bench. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory appellate forum is non-functional, a High Court can entertain a writ petition and impose reasonable conditions for interim relief, including pre-deposit of taxes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench was justified in entertaining the writ petition when a statutory appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal, which is yet to be constituted? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is not yet constituted, there is no effective alternative remedy available, justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The revenue authority (Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-I, Burrabazar Division & ors.) contended that the learned Single Bench rightly entertained the writ petition and the interim direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax was not onerous, considering the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for statutory appeals. They argued that the learned Single Bench exercised its discretion appropriately.