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 under Section 74(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, was an appellable order and that the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against it. The Court emphasized that two parallel proceedings concerning the same adjudication order could not be continued. Consequently, without delving into the merits of the writ petition, the Court kept all points raised by the petitioner, including the relief sought in prayer 'b', open to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition.
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 contended that this order was appellable. It was submitted by the petitioner's advocate that a statutory appeal against the impugned order had already been filed. The Court noted that two parallel proceedings could not be continued against the same adjudication order. The writ petition was filed against the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Strand Road Charge & Ors. The tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text.
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 filed a writ petition challenging the adjudication order. The petitioner's advocate submitted that a statutory appeal against the said order had already been filed, implying the existence of an alternative remedy. The petitioner sought to raise all points before the appellate authority. Revenue/State's Contention: The State's advocate was present. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State or respondents 3 and 5 regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
Section 74(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPA 22945 OF 2023 16.11.2023
Sl no. 18
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
Mr. Kaushik Dey,
Ms. Ekta Sinha
... for respondent No. 3 and 5
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
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.