Azhar Sekh vs. The Superintendent,Ballygunge Div., Kol South
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already initiated appellate proceedings against the order of rejection. Since the petitioner had chosen to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority for the same cause of action and relief sought in the writ petition, he could not simultaneously invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the same purpose. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. For any other grievances raised in the writ petition, the petitioner was granted liberty to make appropriate representations to the concerned authority.
Facts
The petitioner, Azhar Sekh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 24, 2021, which rejected his application for amendment. The petitioner contended that this rejection order was not in accordance with the law and relevant Board Circulars. The respondent CGST & CX, through their counsel, submitted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the order of rejection, which was pending. Given this pendency, the respondent argued that the writ petition should not be entertained.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an appeal against the impugned order of rejection is already pending before the Appellate Authority? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned rejection order was not in accordance with law and contrary to the relevant Circular of the Board, implying a need for judicial intervention. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal against the order of rejection, the writ petition seeking the same relief should not be entertained by the High Court. The respondent relied on the fact that the petitioner had initiated appellate proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 Commissionerate & Ors.
Ms. Rita Mukherjee, Mr. Rawsan Kr. Jha, Mr. Sumanta Mitra … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the Respondent CGST & CX.
Mr. A. Roy, Ld. GP Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. N. Chatterjee … For the State.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
In the writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24th September, 2021, rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment by contending that the impugned rejection order is not in accordance with law and contrary to the relevant Circular of the Board.
Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent concerned submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the aforesaid impugned order of rejection, which is pending and in view of this fact this writ petition should not be entertained.
Considering the submission of the partie
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.