Sanjay Kumar Somani vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Revenue,Alipurduar Zone And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Somany, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the alleged illegal detention and seizure of his goods. Subsequently, an order in original was passed by the relevant authority imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the Writ Court had jurisdiction due to the illegality of the detention and the subsequent order. The State respondents, represented by the Learned Additional Advocate General, contended that an appeal lies under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and cited a coordinate bench decision in Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kharagpur Range & Ors. to support the argument against entertaining an appealable order in writ jurisdiction.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory and efficacious alternative remedy available. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order in original before the designated Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court directed the petitioner to file such an appeal within two weeks. Upon filing, the Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of filing, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the release of his goods in accordance with law and as per the terms and conditions decided by the appropriate authority. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the detention and seizure of goods and a subsequent order in original, despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The Writ Court has jurisdiction because the detention and the subsequent order in original are illegal, warranting intervention by the Writ Court. Revenue/State's contention: The Writ Court should not entertain the petition as there is an efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Reliance was placed on the decision in Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kharagpur Range & Ors.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Ct. No. 26 25 akb 06.01 2021 W.P.A. 11392 of 2020 Sanjay Kumar Somany -Versus- Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Alipurduar Zone & Ors. Mr. Piyal Gup[ta Mr. Parashar Baidya …For the Petitioner Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Learned AAG
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Avra Mazumder …For State Respondents This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by alleged illegal detention and seizure of his goods. Subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the order in original has also been passed by the relevant Authority imposing tax and penalty upon the petitioner. Mr. Piyal Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argues that the Writ Court has juri iction in the matter as the detention and the subsequent order in original are illegal, and accordingly, the Writ Court should intervene. Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the West Bengal GST Authorities submits that an appeal lies under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He further refers to a decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kharagpur Range & Ors. (W.P. 6633 (W) of 2018) to buttress his argument that an appealable order under the statute should not be entertained in writ juri iction. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf
2 of the parties and perused the materials placed on record. In my view, the petitiner has a statutory alternative efficious remedy available. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order in original before the designated Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner is accordingly directed to file such appeal within a period of two weeks and upon such appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the same after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petiioner within a period of six weeks from the date of filing such appeal. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authority for release of his goods in accordance with law and as per the terms and conditions decided by the appropriate Authority. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis. ( Shekhar B. Saraf, 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.