Ms. Poonam Jaiswal, Proprietress Of M/S. Sushil Steels vs. The Superintendent, Range-2, Shibpur Division And Ors.
Facts
The appellant, Ms. Poonam Jaiswal, Proprietress of M/s. Sushil Steels, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated January 17, 2023, passed by a learned Single Bench in W.P.A. 350 of 2023, which had dismissed her writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Superintendent, Range – II, Shibpur Division & Ors. The appellant sought condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the intra-Court appeal. The respondents included the Superintendent, Range – II, Shibpur Division & Ors., the Union of India, and the CGST authority.
Held
The Court held that sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the intra-Court appeal, and accordingly, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 was allowed, condoning the delay. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court found no ground to differ from the learned Single Bench's view that since the order impugned in the writ petition was an appealable order, the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. Consequently, the intra-Court appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Bench was affirmed. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, extending the time for filing such appeal by three weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 55 days in filing the intra-Court appeal, pursuant to I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023. The appellant argued that sufficient cause was demonstrated in the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application. The respondents did not appear to contest this specific application. 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the learned Single Bench, given that the order impugned therein was an appealable order. The appellant contended that the writ petition was maintainable. The respondents, particularly the CGST authority, argued that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained as an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available and was not availed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) In Re: I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
We have heard Mr. Seal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Ms. Saha, learned advocate for the respondent no.5/Union of India and Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/CGST authority.
There is a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause
has been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitat
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.