The repeal of the Finance Act, 1994 by the WBGST Act, 2017, impacts the validity of subsequent recovery proceedings.

The affidavit of service, along with the documents evidencing service of a copy of the writ petition upon respondent no. 2, is taken on record.

The initiation of proceedings under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

Mr. Ghosh, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the WBGST Act, 2017 (in short, the 2017 Act) has expressly repealed the Fianace Act, 1994, with effect from the date of promulgation of the 2017 Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 could have been initiated by the respondents.

He claims that the respondents are continuously insisting on the payment of the amount mentioned in the show cause notice. Such conduct on the part of the respondents warrants the intervention of this court.

In support of his contention, has placed reliance on three unreported decisions of two different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court passed in WPA 24866 of 2024, WPA 16254 of

2024 and WPA 25886 of 2022.

Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate representing the Union of India, has expressed doubt as to whether the petitioner’s firm possesses a valid GST registration number.

In reply Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has a valid GST registration number within the meaning of Section 2(94) of the Act.

Admittedly, in view of Section 173 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Finance Act has been omitted. The show cause notices appearing at page 29-30 indicate that recovery proceedings were initiated to recovcer the arear revenue arising out of the original order dated 23^rd June, 2023. Therefore, the recovcery proceedings were initiated in respect of the claim for unpaid GST after the promulgation of the CGST Act of

2017.

Taking note of the facts, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a strong arguable case in his favour, and unless the interim relief sought by the petitioner is granted, the writ petitioner will be infractuous.

In view thereof, I am inclined to pass an interim order staying in operation of the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 23^rd June, 2023, and its consequential the recovery notices dated 24^th April, 2025 and 7^th May, 2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta on or before 10^th June, 2025.

I am also of the view that the issues raised by the petitioner ought to be decided after the exchange of affidavits by the parties.

The respondents are directed to file their affidavit in opposition to the writ petition within four weeks after the ensusing summer vacation.

The petitioner shall file any reply affidavit within two weeks thereafter.

Liberty is granted to either party to mention the matter for its enlistment after the expiry of the period specified towards the exchange of affidavits.

The interim order shall remain in force until the end of July, 2025, or uintil further orders, whichever is earlier.