✦ Calcutta High Court · 16 Jun 2023

Form No. J.(2) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order passed by

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the statutory requirement, which mandates payment of only 10% of the disputed tax, we are of the view that a condition need not be imposed by directing the appellant/petitioner to pay 20% of the…
  • Para 55. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Bench directing the appellant to pay 20% of the interest amount is set aside and direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal filed by…

Judgment

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR M.A.T. No.824 of 2023 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 Liakhat Ali Mallick Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Appearance:- Mr. Avra Mazumder Mr. Suman Bhowmik ………..For the Appellant Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. T. M. Siddiqui Mr. Saptak Sanyal ……….For the State (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) JUDGMENT

#1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 27th April, 2023 in W.P.A. No.7453 of 2023. The appellant had challenged the garnishee notice dated 13th February, 2023 on the ground that the appellant has paid the entire tax as demanded and has also preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and before the expiry of the period for filing the appeal, the garnishee notice was issued.

#2. The learned Single Bench has granted stay of the garnishee notice but has imposed a condition that the appellant has to deposit 20% of the interest liability, which was originally quantified as Rs.24,74,434/-.

#3. In terms of Section 107(7) of the CGST Act read with Section 107(6) for preferring an appeal, the aggrieved assessee is required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. It is not in dispute that the appellant has paid the entire tax, which has been noted in the order dated 19th December, 2022 passed under Section 73(9) of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, 2017, which shows that the appellant/petitioner has paid the tax of Rs.63,03,920.00.

#4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the statutory requirement, which mandates payment of only 10% of the disputed tax, we are of the view that a condition need not be imposed by directing the appellant/petitioner to pay 20% of the interest.

#5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Bench directing the appellant to pay 20% of the interest amount is set aside and direction is issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal filed by the appellant on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

#6. There shall be no order as to costs.

#7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree, (UDAY KUMAR, J.) Pallab/KS AR(Ct.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order passed by

Which court decided this case, and when?

Calcutta High Court, on 16 Jun 2023. The bench was UDAY KUMAR.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments