Biswanath Paul vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Biswanath Paul, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities. The specific tax period(s) and the exact nature of the order under challenge, along with the amount in dispute, are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner appeared before the Court and submitted that they 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 four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, requesting exclusion of the period during which the writ petition was pending for the purpose of computing limitation.

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they did not intend to proceed with the writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as 'withdrawn'. The Court also observed the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and seek time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition and seek to pursue alternative remedies before the appropriate tribunal, with the benefit of exclusion of the pendency period for limitation.

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 Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission that they do not intend to proceed further. (This is implicitly an issue of procedural disposition). 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal 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 Appellate Tribunal. Arguments: Petitioner: Submitted that they do not intend to proceed with the writ petition and requested its transfer to the Appellate Tribunal. Argued for the exclusion of the pending period for limitation purposes when filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State or CGST Authority regarding the transfer or limitation.