Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam v. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Diamond Harbour Charges And ORS

WPA 25551 of 2024 N.22Sl Shaikh Aslam Ali @ Sk Ali Aslam 151/CL v.

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, 15.12.25 Sl-10 Ct.551 Diamond Harbour Charge & Ors.

(S.R.) Mr. Avra Mazumder Mr. Suman Bhowmik Ms. Alisha Das Ms. Elina Dey Ms. Maitreyee Naskar ... for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Dutta Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Ms. Sumita Shaw Ms. Soumen Chatterjee ... for the State.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated November 16, 2022 passed under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 2017').

2. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. It has been fairly submitted by Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that although the order dated November 16, 2022 is appealable before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017, yet the petitioner could not approach the appellate authority since the petitioner was seriously indisposed and was under dire financial straits. It is submitted that since the appellate remedy required a pre-deposit to be made, the petitioner

could not immediately approach the appellate forum without first being in a position to put in the pre-deposit.

4. Mr. Mazumder invites the attention of this Court to an order dated September 11, 2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 25558 of 2024 which was the petitioner's own case where another order of the same date i.e. November 16, 2022 passed under Section 74 of the said Act of 2017 had been challenged. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by observing, inter alia, as follows: - "4. In the light of the above, in my view, though there is no scope to entertain the writ petition, however, at the same time the petitioner should not be rendered remediless and the determination already made ought to be tested, by the appellate authority, especially when at present the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted.

5. Thus, in the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of four weeks from date with the appellate authority, the appellate authority upon ascertaining that a sum in excess of 20 per cent of the amount in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner or alternatively by seeking for a pre-deposit of 10 percent of the tax in dispute, shall hear out the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

6. Since, the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, it shall also be prudent to direct the petitioner to make payment of cost of

Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

7. It is made clear that upon payments of costs as aforesaid the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek release of the order of attachment from the appellate authority, provided an amount in excess of 10 percent of the Tax in dispute is either paid or recovered and the appeal is filed within the time provided herein."

5. The facts of this case are similar to those before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 25558 of 2024. In such view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Mazumdar before this Court which is not disputed by Mr. Chakraborty that a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute has already been recovered by the respondent GST authorities. In such view of the matter, the appellate authority shall ascertain as to whether a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner or not and if it is found that a sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute has been recovered the appellate authority shall proceed to hear the appeal without insisting on any predeposit. However, if it is found that sum in excess of 10% of the tax in dispute has not been recovered from the petitioner, the appellate

authority shall upon taking/accepting predeposit of an amount equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute, shall hear out the appeal on merits, in accordance with law.

7. Since, the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly, the petitioner shall in terms of the order dated September 11, 2025 passed by this Court in WPA 25558 of 2024 pay costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

8. Upon payment of costs, as aforesaid, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek lifting of the order of attachment from the appellate authority, provided an amount equivalent to 10% of the tax in dispute has either been paid as pre-deposit or recovered from the petitioner and the appeal has been filed within the time provided hereinabove.

9. WPA 25551 of 2024 stands disposed of with the above observations.

10.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 11.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)