Shibsankar Ghosh vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Sri Shinsankar Ghosh, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner subsequently submitted that they no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. The petitioner also indicated that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Therefore, the petitioner sought to transfer the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and requested eight weeks to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata 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.
Held
The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they did not intend to proceed with the writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. However, acknowledging the petitioner's request to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, the Court observed that the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata within eight weeks. The Court also implicitly allowed the request for exclusion of the pendency period for limitation by disposing of the writ petition with the observation regarding preferring an appeal. The specific amount in dispute and the authority that passed the original order were not recorded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission of not intending to proceed further. 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. 3. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. They requested eight weeks to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and sought exclusion of the pendency period of the writ petition for calculating the limitation period. The petitioner relied on Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State.
Sections Cited
Section 112
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
06 06.10.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
W.P.A. 19712 of 2025
Sri Shinsankar Ghosh -versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arkadipta Sengipta. Mr. Tirthankar Dey. Ms. Ria Naskar.
…For the Petitioner.
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
… For the State.
Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his 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 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 eight 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.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.