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 under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, and the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against it. The Court acknowledged that two parallel proceedings concerning the same adjudication order could not be pursued simultaneously. Consequently, the Court did not delve 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 raised before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to consider these points in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court chose not to entertain the writ petition on procedural grounds.
Facts
The petitioner, Anis Patel, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order passed under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's advocate submitted that a statutory appeal against this order has already been filed. The adjudication order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge & Ors. The writ petition was filed to challenge this order.
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 when the impugned order is an appellable order under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the writ petition should be entertained, likely arguing for exceptional circumstances or the inadequacy of the appellate remedy. The State (represented by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge & Ors.) implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy, given the submission that a statutory appeal was already filed. The court noted that two parallel proceedings cannot be continued against the same adjudication order.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 22942 OF 2023 16.11.2023
Sl no. 16
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. T. Chakraborty
… 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 rel
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.