Madhusudan Saraogi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, Howrah And Kadamtala Charge And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Madhusudan Saraogi, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Howrah & Kadamtala Charge. The petitioner subsequently informed the Court that they no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. The petitioner's advocate presented written instructions to this effect. The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. The petitioner requested that the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, requesting exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes.

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that they did not intend to proceed with the writ petition further. Consequently, the writ petition, along with any associated applications, was dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and exclude the pending period for limitation, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner seeks eight weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and that the period of pendency should be excluded for computing limitation. The Court did not explicitly rule on the exclusion of time but disposed of the petition with this observation, implying the petitioner's request was noted and would be considered in the context of filing the appeal.

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 Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission of not intending to proceed further. 2.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 period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since they do not intend to proceed with the writ petition, it should be dismissed as withdrawn. Furthermore, they contended that the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, as the Appellate Tribunal is now functional. They relied on the establishment of the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State.