N.22Sl WPA 7702 of 2025

151/CL

18.02.26 Shinryo Suvidha Engineers India Pvt. Ltd.

Sl-15 v.

Ct.551 State of West Bengal & Ors.

(S.R.)

Mr. Kumarjit Das Ms. Mou Saha … for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanoy Chgakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal … for the State.

1. Exception to the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated October 29, 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereafter the ‘said Act of 2017’) whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the adjudication order dated August 7, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the said Act of

2017 has been dismissed.

3. The principal ground of challenge that was canvassed before this Court was that although a date of hearing was fixed on September 27, 2024 by the appellate authority, the petitioner was not granted hearing on the said date. However, from the report in the form of an affidavit that has been September 27, 2024 at 3.00 p.m., the petitioner had furnished certain documents to the appellate authority by email without recording any objection of the nature canvassed in Court today. Such mail does not state that the petitioner was not heard on September 27, 2024 as alleged. Furthermore, at paragraph 10 of the writ petition also, it is the petitioner’s own case in the writ petition that the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority on September 27, 2024 and made submissions. Indeed, there are allegations in the said paragraph that the petitioner sought for another date to submit written note of argument but such fact is missing in the mail sent to the appellate authority on September 27, 2024.

4. In such view of the matter, there does not appear to be any violation of principle of natural justice.

5. In so far as the appellate authority’s decision on merits is concerned, the same may be erroneous as alleged by the petitioner but for a decision on such score affidavits will have to be called for.

6. Since the appellate tribunal which the petitioner could have approached for preferring appeal in terms of Section 112 of the said Act of 2017 is not yet functional, this writ petition is entertained.

7. Let affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition be weeks from date. Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

8. List this matter for hearing immediately after expiry of the time fixed for exchange of affidavit.

9. In case, the petitioner deposits 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute with the GST authorities in terms of the provisions of Section 112(8) of the said Act of 2017 within two weeks from date and furnishes proof thereof to the GST

not take any step towards recovery of any sum on

the strength of adjudication order dated August 7,

2023 affirmed by the appellate order impugned

dated October 29, 2024 until further orders.

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)