Krishna Jaiswal vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Ultadanga, Cossipore, Belgachia Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Krishna Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated August 26, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. At the time of filing the writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not been constituted. Subsequently, a notification dated September 17, 2025, was issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, establishing the date up to which appeals could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable in its current form because an alternative remedy is now available to the petitioner. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had not been constituted when the writ petition was filed. However, a notification dated September 17, 2025, has since been issued, making the Appellate Tribunal functional for appeals. The Court reasoned that in the presence of a statutory alternative remedy, a writ petition should not be entertained. The ratio decidendi is that once a statutory appellate forum is established and functional, parties should be directed to avail that remedy rather than approaching the High Court through a writ petition, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of the notification dated September 17, 2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, providing an alternative remedy. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner initially filed the writ petition because the Appellate Tribunal was not constituted at that time, implying a lack of alternative remedy. Revenue's Contention: The State submitted that the petitioner now has an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 112(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
12
16-04-2026 AKG Ct. 237
WPA 27555 of 2025 Krishna Jaiswal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ultadanga & Ors.
Mr. Abhijat Das, Ms. Aratrika Roy, Mr. Anirban Chatterjee …for the Petitioner
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated August 26, 2025, passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner now has an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It appears that, at the time of filing of the writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had not been constituted. It further appears that a notification dated September 17, 2025 has since been issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, which reads as follows:- “S.O. 4220(E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30th day of June, 2026, as the date upto which appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal before the 1st day of April, 2026 and all appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1st April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring
2 the appeal.” In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, WPA 27555 of 2025 is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of the aforesaid notification dated September 17, 2025 before the Appellate Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Kausik Chanda, 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.