Ntc Industries Limited vs. State Tax Officer, Kharagpur Zone, And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, NTC Industries Limited, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order or action by the State Tax Officer, Kharagpur Zone, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) & Ors. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner has now decided not to proceed with the writ petition further. The petitioner's counsel submitted that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period.
Held
The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that they do not intend to proceed with the writ petition further. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also observed and permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata within eight weeks from the date of the order. It was further directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court would be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute, as the petition was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission of not intending to proceed further. 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for preferring an appeal. 3. 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. Contentions: Petitioner: Submitted that the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal as it is now functional. Requested eight weeks' time to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. Argued for exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes, relying on the availability of the Appellate Tribunal. State: No arguments were recorded for the State.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
01 25.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 28757 of 2023
NTC Industries Limited -versus State Tax Officer, Kharagpur Zone, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) & Ors.
Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar.
…For the Petitioner.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
… For the State.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client does not intend to proceed with the writ petition any further.
In view of such submission, the writ petition along with application stand dismissed as ‘withdrawn’.
The petitioner submits that since the Appellate Tribunal has already been constituted and is functional, the instant writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and seeks eight weeks time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The period during which the petition has been pending be excluded for computing limitation.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Smita Das De, J.)
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.