Biswas Distribution vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Barrackpore Zone North 24 Parganas And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Biswas Distributor, has challenged an adjudication order dated February 12, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017. This order found the petitioner liable for Rs. 82,78,093/- towards tax, interest, and penalty for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner contends that the order was passed without considering their letter dated March 11, 2021, which explained an inadvertent mistake in filing Form GSTR-3B for 2018. The writ petition was filed on August 20, 2025, over one and a half years after the impugned order was issued.
Held
The Court held that while no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, it is well-settled that such petitions must be filed within a reasonable time, and any delay must be appropriately explained. The Court cited A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector Of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani (AIR 1961 SC 1506) for the principle that a petitioner who disables themselves from availing a statutory remedy by their own fault in not doing so within the statutory time cannot press that ground to entertain a writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficient causes for the delay in filing the writ petition and had not successfully demonstrated grounds warranting interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when an alternative statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, was available. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition. The operative direction was that the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, but the petitioner was not prevented from approaching the appellate authority in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition, filed over one and a half years after the impugned adjudication order, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the delay and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy (Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017)? The petitioner argued that the adjudication order was passed without considering their explanation for an inadvertent mistake in their GST return. They implicitly sought to bypass the statutory appeal process due to this alleged procedural flaw. The State, through its counsel, contended that writ petitions must be filed within a reasonable time and that unexplained delay disentitles a petitioner from seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. They also highlighted the availability of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017, which the petitioner had not availed within the prescribed time.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
N.22Sl 151/CL 06.11.25 Sl-02 Ct.551 (S.R.)
WPA 19429 of 2025 Biswas Distributor v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dr. Siddhartha Goswami Mr. Vaskar Saha Mr. Aniket Kanrar … for the petitioner. Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal … for the State.
The petitioner assails an adjudication order dated February 12, 2024 passed under Section 73 of the WBGST Act, 2017 whereby the petitioner has been found liable in a sum of Rs.82,78,093/- on account of tax, interest and penalty for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. 2. The petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without taking into consideration a letter dated March 11, 2021 issued by the petitioner to the GST officer, Group-D whereby the petitioner had brought to the notice of the said officer that there was an inadvertent mistake in filling up of Form-GSTR3B of 2018. 3. The writ petition has been filed on August 20, 2025 i.e. more than one and half years after issuance of the order impugned.
Although no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition, yet it is well settled that writ petition under Article 226 should be filed within a reasonable time and delay occasioned, if any, should be appropriately explained.
It is settled-law that if the petitioner has disabled himself from availing the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the statutory time he cannot press the same as a ground to urge the Court to entertain his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector Of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani reported at AIR 1961 SC 1506).
Indeed, in a fit case, if causes for delay are sufficiently explained, the Court can certainly entertain a writ petition. However, it would almost always refuse to exercise discretion in favour of an indolent litigant who approaches Writ Court with unexplained delay.
Furthermore, no ground has been successfully demonstrated warranting interference under the highly prerogative extraordinary writ juri iction of this Court under Article 226 by-passing the alternative statutory appellate remedy available to the writ petitioner under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017. 8. In view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not minded to exercise its discretion in favour of entertaining the writ petition. 2
The writ petition is, therefore, not entertained.
This order shall, however, not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appellate authority, in accordance with law.
WPA 19429 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) 3
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.