Sneh Comprint Private Limited vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sneh Comprint Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner's learned advocate submitted that the client no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. The petitioner then requested that the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, as it has been constituted and is functional. The petitioner sought eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.
Held
The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they did not intend to proceed with the writ petition further. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. However, in view of the petitioner's request to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, the Court allowed the petitioner eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary outcome was the dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission that they do not intend to proceed further. (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. 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 GSTAT. Arguments: Petitioner: Submitted that the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and that the period of pendency of the writ petition should be excluded for limitation purposes, as the Appellate Tribunal is now functional. State: No arguments recorded for the State in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
01 24.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 20595 of 2023
Sneh Comprint Private Limited -versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Sanjana Jha.
…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.