D/L - 11

27/10/2025 Court. No. 2

Aritra

In the High Court at Calcutta

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Appellate Side

WPA 1824 of 2025

Gyannayak Steel through its partner

Ushasee Sarkar

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Antik Majumder Mr. Anurag Sharma ….for the petitioner

Mr. Joyjit Chowdhury, Ld. A.A.G.

Ms. Rima Sarkar

….for the State

Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal

Mr. Biswa Raj Agarwal

….for the respondent No.2

This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is at the instance of a distributer and is directed against an Order-in-Original dated November 19, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Charge, Jalpaiguri under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax, 2017 for the period of

2022-2023.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

that the very foundation of the Order-in-Original dated November 19, 2024 is an inspection being carried out under the provisions of Section 67(1) of the WBGST Act by a team of officials of the

State authorities on February 24, 2023.

The learned advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon

the provisions of Section 67 (1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 in

support of his contention that the inspection search and seizure has to be carried out only after recording reasons to believe in writing that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the stock of goods in hand or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the said Act.

The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the inspection report was prepared during the course of the search and seizure and, therefore, there could not have been any reasons to believe for conducting the inspection search and seizure. He further submits that no authorization in the prescribed manner was also made as prescribed under Rule 139 of the WBGST Rules.

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the authority, while passing the Order-in-Original dated November 19, 2024, relied upon the seized documents. He submits that the copies of the relied upon document were not supplied to the petitioner which resulted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the availability of an alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar as an aggrieved party can approach the Writ Court if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice or the order impugned has been passed without having jurisdiction.

Heard the learned advocate for the State and CGST authorities on such submission.

After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the inspection was conducted sometimes on February 24, 2023. It is not in dispute that an appeal lies against the Order-in-

Original dated November 19, 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Charge, Jalpaiguri.

The petitioner has approached the Writ Court on the ground that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the relevant statute. The Order-in- Original was passed on November 19, 2024. Against the said Order-in-Original an appeal lies under the provisions of Section

107 of the 2017 Act.

Section 107 (1) of the said Act states that such an appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to such person. Sub-Section (4) of Section 107 of the said Act states that the appellate authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, may allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.

The instant writ petition has been filed only on August 25, 2025 i.e., well beyond the statutory period of limitation as well as the period specified under Section 107 (4) vesting power upon the appellate authority to condone the delay.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that the appeal could not have been preferred within the statutory pe