M/S Khalsa Engineering Works And Another vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Officer, Salkia Charge And Otheres

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Khalsa Engineering Works & Anr., have filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order passed by the State GST appellate authority. The State GST appellate authority's order is further appealable. However, the petitioners have approached the High Court via a writ petition because the State forum for further appeals is currently unavailable. The Court has admitted the writ petition but found no scope for passing an interim order at this stage. The respondents have been directed to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, and the petitioners are to file an affidavit-in-reply within one week thereafter. The matter is listed for final hearing after six weeks, with parties required to be ready with short written notes of argument.

Held

The Court admitted the writ petition, acknowledging its jurisdiction. However, it explicitly found no scope for passing any interim order at this preliminary stage. The reasoning for admitting the writ petition, despite the existence of a further appealable order, appears to be the current unavailability of the State appellate forum. This suggests the Court is recognizing the practical impediment to accessing the statutory remedy. The Court's decision to proceed with the writ petition indicates a prima facie view that the petitioners have presented a case warranting further consideration, especially given the procedural deadlock. The operative directions are limited to procedural steps for the final hearing, including filing of affidavits and preparation of written arguments. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the underlying GST dispute have been made at this juncture.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court despite the existence of a further appellate remedy before the State GST appellate authority, given the unavailability of the State forum? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argue that the writ petition is maintainable due to the current unavailability of the statutory appellate forum, which renders the alternative remedy ineffective. They contend that approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction is justified in such circumstances to prevent a failure of justice. Revenue's contention: The respondents (State GST authorities) have not recorded any specific arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the issues at this preliminary stage. Their primary engagement in the recorded proceedings pertains to the procedural directions for filing affidavits and listing the matter for final hearing.