Mahabir Prasad Kedia vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had tendered a letter of withdrawal dated 2nd September 2026, indicating that the client did not wish to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition because an appeal had already been preferred against the order of adjudication during its pendency. Since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the petitioner sought to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy. The Court took on record the written instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the instant writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, requesting exclusion of the period of pendency for limitation. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Mahabir Prasad Kedia, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication. The petitioner stated that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional and sought to pursue the statutory remedy. The petitioner requested the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal given its functional status. 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. They further contended that they should be granted four weeks to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and that the period of pendency of the writ petition should be excluded for limitation purposes. The State respondent remained unrepresented. No arguments were recorded for the State.