2021 (8) TMI 1010 - HC - GST

Constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(4) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 - appealable order or not - HELD THAT - Since it is an appealable order, this writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy and petitioner should go before the appellate forum available under the statute. Only on the ground of challenge of constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions of the act, this writ petition can be entertained. The petitioner is allowed to withdraw the money amounting to ₹ 50,00,000/- from his cash credit ledger only for the purpose of pre- deposit for filing the appeal and it has been submitted that the balance amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- of the demand he has already paid - List this matter for hearing in the month of November, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of Adjudicating Authority dated 3rd March, 2021; Constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(4) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 3rd March, 2021, which is appealable. The court noted that since it is an appealable order, the writ petition cannot be entertained based on the availability of a statutory alternative remedy. However, the challenge to the constitutional validity of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(4) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, allows the writ petition to be entertained solely on this ground.

The petitioner requested to withdraw money from the cash credit ledger due to the attachment of the bank account, citing financial hardship. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw an amount of ?50,00,000 from the cash credit ledger specifically for the purpose of making a pre-deposit for filing the appeal. It was mentioned that the petitioner had already paid the balance amount of ?50,00,000 of the demand.

A direction was given that no further coercive action would be taken against the petitioner if the appeal is filed within seven days from the date of the order or until the appeal is filed, whichever is earlier. The respondents were instructed to file an affidavit-in-opposition focusing on the constitutional validity of the provisions in question within six weeks, with the petitioner given the opportunity to file an affidavit-in-reply within two weeks thereafter.

The matter was listed for hearing in November 2021, and it was noted that since both the learned Attorney General and learned Advocate General were represented, no additional notice was required to be served upon them. The court also stated that the supplementary affidavit filed in court became irrelevant in view of the order made.