M P Sons Trading Private Limited vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Revenue, Mr And Ns Road Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, MP Sons Trading Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner informed the Court that they no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. Instead, they requested the Court to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT Kolkata) and sought four weeks' time to file an appeal there under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, MR & NS Road Charge, Government of West Bengal & Ors.
Held
The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they do not intend to proceed with the writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. However, the Court also made an observation that the petitioner could prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and sought four weeks' time for this purpose. The Court also observed that the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations.
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 Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission that they do not intend to proceed further. 2.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 the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner submitted that they do not intend to proceed with the writ petition. They further argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. They requested four weeks to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and sought exclusion of the pending period for limitation purposes. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State's side regarding the transfer or exclusion of time.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
06 22.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 23936 of 2025
MP Sons Trading Private Limited -versus Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, MR & NS Road Charge, Government of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Sanjana Jha.
…For the Petitioner.
Ms. Manju Agarwal. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Sruti Datta.
… 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 written instruction given by the petitioner to his learned advocate be taken on record.
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 four 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.
2
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.