AEW Technologies LLP and Anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) and Ors. – Calcutta High Court

(2023) taxcode.in 162 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

AEW Technologies LLP and Anr.
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) and Ors.

WPA 19566 of 2023
Decided on 29-Aug-23

Mr. Justice Md. Nizamuddin

Add. Info:

For Appellant(s): Mr. Abhijat Das, Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury, Ms. Aratrika Roy, Mr. Anirban Chatterjee

For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal.

Judgment/Order:

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the first appellate authority under the WBGST Act. Though the aforesaid order is further appellable before the Tribunal, but the said forum is not available at present and petitioner has no alternative remedy. In view of the aforesaid situation, this writ petition is being entertained and shall be finally heard on exchange of affidavits. Let the respondents filed affidavit in opposition within four weeks; petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

The matter shall appear for final hearing in the monthly list of December, 2023.

Statute requires that for filing appeal before the first appellate authority against the order in original petitioner is to make pre-deposit of 10% of the tax and in case petitioner wants to challenge the order of the first appellate authority before the Tribunal, petitioner/assessee will have to make a pre-deposit of additional 20% of the remaining disputed tax. But, in this case, petitioner submits that the respondent authority has recovered more than the aforesaid amount which are required to be paid by pre-deposit before the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority and recovered even before the expiry of the statutory period of time to file appeal before the Tribunal.

Mr. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the respondent authority concerned has recovered more than the aforesaid amount which are required to be paid by the petitioner as per the statute in case petitioner wants to go to appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent authority concerned is directed to refund the excess amount of pre-deposit within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, subject to compliance of any other formalities which are required under the law.

( Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

Original judgment copy is available here.