Arati Constructions vs. Superintendent Of Central Tax, Range-I, Tollygunge Division_Kolkata South CGST And Cx And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Arati Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated April 24, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contended that the proper officer failed to consider their response and relevant circulars, and argued that the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 74, not Section 73. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal and that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. The adjudication order was passed on April 24, 2024, and the writ petition was filed on July 11, 2024.
Held
The Court held that since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, and no jurisdictional issue was identified that goes to the root of the matter, the writ petition should not be admitted. The Court found that the petitioner had not been able to identify any procedural irregularity that would warrant interference by the High Court. Challenges to an order on the merits of the decision rendered by the adjudicating authority are more appropriately adjudicated by the Appellate Authority in the first instance. The Court noted that the adjudication order was passed on April 24, 2024, and the writ petition was filed on July 11, 2024, which is within the prescribed period for preferring an appeal. Consequently, the Court directed that if an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority within three weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority shall hear and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order, subject to compliance with other formalities by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an adjudication order when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, and no jurisdictional issue is involved. 2. Whether the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, is valid, considering the petitioner's arguments regarding non-consideration of their response and relevant circulars, and the contention that proceedings should have been under Section 74. Petitioner's arguments: The proper officer failed to consider the petitioner's response and several circulars, rendering the adjudication order bad in law. The proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act, not Section 73. Respondents' arguments: The petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. No jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter was identified by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ML -58 04.09.2024 b.r./D. Hira Ct No. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 17800 of 2024
Arati Constructions Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, Range -1, Tollygunge Division, Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Parag Kothari.
… for the petitioner
Mr. Kaushik Dey,
Mr. A. Raha.
.. for the respondent
Nos. 1, 2 & 3
Mr. Prabir Kumar Das,
Ms. Tapasi Sinha Palit.
… for the respondent no. 5
Challenging the adjudication order dated 24th April, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 the present writ petition has been filed.
The petitioner says that the proper officer without considering the petitioner’s response, has passed the adjudication order. He also submits that several circulars have not been considered by the proper officer which he was otherwise obliged to consider. It is also claimed that the present proceeding ought to have proceeded under Section 74 of the said Act
2 and not under Section 73 of the said Act. The adjudication order is bad in law and cannot be sustained, the same should be set aside.
Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and as such this Court ought not to entertain the present writ petition.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. I am of the view since, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the said Act, and since, there is no juri iction issue involved which goes to the root of the matter, further the petitioner having not been able to identify any procedural irregularity, there is no scope to admit the writ petition.
Challenge to an order on merits of the decision rendered by the adjudicating authority, in my view can more appropriately be adjudicated at the first instance by the Appellate Authority.
I find that the adjudication order has been passed on 24th April, 2024 and the present writ petition has been filed on 11th July, 2024,
3 that is within the prescribed period for preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act.
Having regard thereto, if an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, within a period of three weeks from date, the Appellate Authority having due regard to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, subject to compliance of other formalities by the petitioner.
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.