Purulia Metal Casting (P.) Ltd. Vs Or Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purulia

In a recent legal proceeding, both sides were represented by experienced advocates. The petitioner brought forth a writ petition to contest an action taken against them. They challenged the act of recovering a demand specified in an adjudication order from December 14, 2021. This recovery was executed on February 1, 2022, by debiting the amount from their electronic credit ledger. The petitioner argued that this action was in violation of Section 78 of the WBGST Act, 2017, which mandates a three-month window for filing a statutory appeal before any recovery proceedings can be initiated.

The undisputed facts revealed that the adjudication order had indeed been issued on December 14, 2021. However, the recovery took place just 49 days later, on February 1, 2022. This rapid action by the respondent authorities constituted a direct breach of Section 78 of the Act, as it didn’t allow the petitioner the mandated time frame to exercise their right to appeal.

In a recent legal proceeding, both parties were represented by learned advocates. The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the recovery action taken against them based on an adjudication order dated December 14, 2021. They contested that the recovery, which occurred on February 1, 2022, violated Section 78 of the WBGST Act, 2017, as it was done within 49 days of the adjudication order without providing the mandatory three-month window for filing a statutory appeal.

The court acknowledged that the recovery indeed transpired within a short timeframe, contrary to the provisions of Section 78. After considering the submissions and reviewing the case’s circumstances, the court disposed of the writ petition (WPA No.14288 of 2022) by directing the authorities to refund the excess amount collected, which exceeded 10% of the demand. This excess amount was meant to be a pre-deposit for filing an appeal against the adjudication order.

The court imposed a condition that the petitioner must file an appeal against the adjudication order within 15 days. If the appeal is filed within the specified timeframe, the appellate authority was instructed to consider any issues of limitation leniently. However, if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the given timeframe, the authorities are free to take further action to recover the demand.

Furthermore, the petitioner was granted liberty to file the appeal offline, as the deadline for filing online had passed. The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the adjudication order, leaving that to be determined by the appellate authority.

Consequently, the writ petition (WPA No.14286 of 2022) was also disposed of with this observation and direction, affirming that the merits of the adjudication order would be decided separately by the appropriate appellate body.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: