Deepika Mandal Maity VS Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal,howrah Zone and Ors.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16thDecember, 2022, passed by the Adjudicating Authority concerned under theWBGST Act on the order of remand by this court passed on 12th December,2022 in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being WPA 26717 of 2022.Petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition on earlier occasion on the groundthat the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was not aspeaking order and this court had set aside the impugned order with the directionupon the respondent authority concerned to consider the representation of thepetitioner, dated 14th November, 2022, in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Now the order impugned dated 16th December,2022 has again been challenged by the petitioner by contending that theimpugned order is not a speaking order since the contention raised by thepetitioner has not been properly dealt with. In another way it can be said that thepetitioner is challenging the sufficiency of the reasons given by the authorityconcerned in the aforesaid impugned order. On perusal of the aforesaidimpugned order I find that the same contains reasons and it is a detailed orderand sufficiency of the reasons to the satisfaction of the petitioner cannot be aground for avoiding alternative remedy by way of appeal since the impugnedorder is an appealable order under the relevant provisions of the WBGST Act.Furthermore, this is not a case where the impugned order has been passed inviolation of principles of natural justice or the order has been passed by theauthority having inherent lack of jurisdiction and it is also not a case that theground or the issue raised in this writ petition is barred under the statute foradjudication by the Appellate Authority.

In view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to entertain this writpetition being WPA 648 of 2023 and accordingly the same is dismissed on theground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal.

It is clarified that any findings or the observation made in this order will nothave any impact on the merits of any appeal to be filed by the petitioner beforethe Appellate Authority. Further, refusal to entertain this writ petition will not bea bar on the respondent authority concerned to release the vehicle in question, ifthe petitioner makes any application and complies the formalities in accordancewith law.

Download PDF:
Deepika Mandal Maity

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law