Monika Gupta vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Monika Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the client no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. The petitioner then stated 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 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 she did not intend to proceed with the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court also observed the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal, given its functional status. The Court granted the petitioner eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court further directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the petitioner's submission that she does not intend to proceed further. 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) for preferring 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 Kolkata. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner submitted that she does not intend to proceed with the writ petition and requested its transfer to the Appellate Tribunal. She sought time to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and requested exclusion of the pending period for limitation purposes. The petitioner relied on the establishment and functionality of the Appellate Tribunal. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
03 22.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 15194 of 2024
Monika Gupta -versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rowsan Kumar Jha.
…For the Petitioner.
Ms. Manju Agarwal. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
… For the State.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that her 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.