M/S Eastern Micropor Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax, Howrah Cgst And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.551 11.11.25 Item No.10 Sws.M WPA 20489 of 2025 M/s. Eastern Micropor Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Howrah CGST and Ors.

Mr. Dipankar Majumdar Mr. Ranjeet Prasad Ms. Aishi Pal Mr. Vaibhav Prakash ...for the petitioner Mr. N. Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal ...for the State Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee ...for the CGST Authority Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman Ms. Sukanya Dutta ...for the respondent No. 3 1.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

2.

The writ petition assails an order in original dated December 20, 2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding itself suffers from gross jurisdictional errors inasmuch as the show-cause notice had been issued upon clubbing several tax periods, starting from financial year 2017 to 2018 to financial year 2022 to 2023. An order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act is

appealable before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017.

3.

Attention of this Court has also been drawn to a judgment passed by a Co-ordinate of this Court in the case of UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors.

reported at 2025(5) TMI 728 where, in a similar fact situation, this Court refused to exercise discretion in favour of the writ petition and relegated the petitioners before the Court to the appellate remedy available under the statute. In the said case, this Court noticed that the petitioners had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after the adjudication order was passed and not at the stage of show-cause. In view of the belated approach to the Writ Court, the Court refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.

4.

The facts of the case at hand being similar to the one in UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no reason for this Court to take a divergent course. In view of the clear efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in entertaining the writ petition.

5.

WPA 20489 of 2025is accordingly dismissed.

6.

This order shall, however, not prevent the petitioner from approaching the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 in accordance with law.

7.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis after completion of necessary formalities. (Om Narayan Rai , J.)