Anis Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge And Ors.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the fact that the impugned adjudication order was an appellable order and the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal. The Court emphasized that two parallel proceedings concerning the same adjudication order could not be permitted to continue. Consequently, the Court did not go into the merits of the writ petition. However, all points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, including the relief sought in prayer 'b', were expressly kept open to be argued before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider these points in accordance with law.
Facts
The petitioner, Anis Patel, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order issued under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that they had already filed a statutory appeal against this impugned order before the appellate authority. The State was represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge & Ors. The court noted that the impugned order was an appellable order and that two parallel proceedings concerning the same adjudication order could not be continued.
Key Issues
1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner, particularly concerning an adjudication order under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, having filed a statutory appeal against the impugned adjudication order, implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, likely on grounds of exceptional circumstances or procedural irregularities not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, the primary argument presented was that the appeal had been filed. Revenue's contention: The State, through its representatives, argued that since the impugned order was appellable and an appeal had already been filed by the petitioner, the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for adjudication. They contended that parallel proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 22943 OF 2023 16.11.2023
Sl no. 17
Anis Patel. Ct no. 2
- Vs - P.M.
Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes,
Strand Road Charge & Ors.
Mr. Boudhyan Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Taniya Roy,
Ms. Stuti Bansal
… for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Govt. Pleader Md. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. S. Sanyal
… for the State
Heard learned advocates for the parties. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned adjudication order under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 which is an appellable order and in fact petitioner has already filed the statutory appeal against the aforesaid impugned order as submitted by learned advocate representing the petitioner and considering this factual and legal aspect and that the two parallel proceeding cannot be continued against the same adjudication order, without going into the merit of this writ petition I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, however, all the points raised in this writ petition are kept open to the petitioner before the appellate authority including the relief a
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.