Soumen Gargari vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Soumen Gargari, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated 28.10.2022, which he received on 06.12.2022. The writ petition was filed on 09.02.2024, approximately one year and two months after receiving the order, and after the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired. The petitioner did not provide any cogent reasons for this significant delay in approaching the High Court. The respondent authorities were the CGST authorities.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy, as the impugned adjudication order is appellable under the statute. The Court noted the petitioner's significant delay in filing the writ petition and the expiry of the appeal period without any cogent explanation. However, in the interest of justice and in exceptional circumstances, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the impugned adjudication order within three weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on its merits, provided the petitioner paid a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the authority within ten days and submitted proof of payment. Upon compliance, the appellate authority would dispose of the appeal on merit without raising the issue of limitation. Furthermore, if the petitioner made the pre-deposit and paid the cost, the attachment of the bank account would remain stayed until the disposal of the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on grounds of availability of an alternative remedy, given the statutory appeal process against the impugned order. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted relief despite the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the expiry of the appeal period. The petitioner argued for relief from the High Court. The revenue/State, represented by the CGST authorities, contended that the impugned adjudication order is appellable under the statute, implying the availability of an alternative remedy. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the petitioner regarding the delay or the maintainability of the writ petition on merits, focusing instead on the procedural aspects and the availability of the appeal route.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 3647 OF 2024 14.03.2024
Sl no. 153
Soumen Gargari Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray, Mr. Paban Kumar Ray Ms. Shiwani Shaw
… for the petitioner
Mr. K. K. Maiti,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
... for CGST authorities.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order in original dated 28.10.2022 received on 06.12.2022, by filing this writ petition on 09.02.2024, i.e. almost after one year and two months and even after expiry of time to file appeal which has expired long back. Petitioner has not come up with any cogent reason for the aforesaid delay in approaching this writ court after long delay in filing the appeal. Furthermore, since the impugned adjudication order, under the statute is appellable, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to grant any relief in this writ petition except granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the aforesaid impugned adjudication order within a
2 period of thr
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.