JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. The year of instituting these appeals in the order dated 22nd July, 2022 shall be read as “2022” instead of “2021.” Let the same be corrected accordingly.

2. These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 10th June, 2022 passed in W.P.A. No. 9766 of 2022, W.P.A. No. 9789 of 2022 and W.P.A. No. 9752 of 2022 respectively. The orders impugned before us are interim orders passed by the learned Single Bench whereunder the learned Single Bench was of the prima facie view that the writ petitions cannot be thrown out at the motion stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy and that the writ petitions have to be heard and decided on merits. With such observation, the respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a time frame giving liberty to the appellants / writ petitioners to file their reply thereto. The appellants are not aggrieved by such an order nor the respondents have preferred any appeal against such an order. The appellants are aggrieved by the penultimate portion of the order whereunder and by which the learned Writ Court was prima facie satisfied that the appellants/writ petitioners have been able to make out a case for an interim order and considering the said aspect, there will be a conditional stay of the impugned adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the demand in question within a time frame and if the appellants comply with the same, the respondents were directed not to initiate any coercive action against the appellants.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that the learned Writ Court having prima facie found that the writ petitions are maintainable even though an alternative remedy is available, ought to have granted stay of the impugned orders in the writ petitions and ought not to have directed deposit of 10% of the demand. Further it is submitted that several grounds have been raised in the writ petitions touching upon the jurisdiction of the matters and as to how there has been procedural infraction and such other grounds, which will render the order impugned in the writ petitions as a nullity. Without prejudice to the said submission, the learned Advocate for the appellants would also submit that assuming an appeal was preferred under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 10% of the tax alone is required to be deposited as a condition precedent for filing a statutory appeal before the concerned Joint Commissioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate by referring to the application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rules framed by the High Court at Calcutta and in particular, Rule 51 of the Rules submitted that in all applications involving revenue where an assessment has already been made or upheld, no order shall be made staying the realisation thereof, unless the assessee making the application, gives security as may be deemed adequate by the Court, for the due payment of the amount assessed to tax. The amount of security, the time within which it shall be furnished and the manner of furnishing, shall be at the discretion of the Court making the order. Where such security has been ordered ex-parte, any party to the application upon being served with the Writ may apply to the Court for enhancing or reducing the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Single Bench has exercised discretion and this Court in an intra Court appeal may not disturb such an order and the appellants should be directed to comply with the direction or in the alternative, the appellants should be directed to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

5. After we have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties, we are of the considered view that the learned Writ Court was right in protecting the interest of the appellants till the disposal of the writ petitions as the appellants were able to make out a prima facie case to the satisfaction of the lear