Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debasish Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 December, 2022
Item No.1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 21.12.2022
DELIVERED ON:21.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T No.1642 of 2022
with
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
with
I.A. No.CAN 2 of 2022
Debasish Ghosh.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Appearance:-
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee,
Mr. Arup Sarkar ... for the appellant.
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya,
Mr. Tapan Bhanja .... for Union of India.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Re: I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
1. This is an application to condone the delay of 14 days in
filing the instant appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant duly assisted by Mr. Arup Sarkar,
learned Advocate and Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, learned
senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents duly
assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned junior standing counsel
for the respondents.
3. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit
filed in support of the application. Accordingly, the delay in
filing the instant appeal is condoned.
4. The application for condonation of delay being I.A. No.CAN
1 of 2022 is allowed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
Re: MAT 1642 of 2022
6. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed
against the order dated 20th June, 2022 in W.P.A. 10186 of 2022.
The writ petition was filed challenging an adjudication order
passed by the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX
Commissionerate. The learned Single Bench dismissed the appeal
on the ground that an alternate remedy is available before the
Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by such order, the writ
petitioner has filed the present appeal.
7. We have heard Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant duly assisted by Mr. Arup Sarkar,
learned Advocate and Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, learned
senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents duly
assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned junior standing counsel
for the respondents.
8. The grounds, which have been canvassed before this Court in
this appeal are all disputed questions of fact, which the
appellant has to essentially agitate before the appellate
authority. The appeal remedy available to the appellant is not
only an effective remedy but an efficacious remedy. Therefore,
the appellant would not be justified in bypassing the said
remedy. Therefore, we agree with the view of the learned Single
Bench that the appellant ought to have preferred an appeal to
the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of filing the writ petition.
9. For such reason, the appeal is dismissed and the order
passed in the writ petition is affirmed. The appellant is
granted liberty to file the appeal within 30 days from the date
of receipt of this order before the concerned Commissioner
(Appeals) and if the same is filed, the appeal shall not be
rejected on the ground of limitation but shall be considered in
accordance with law.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. 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, J)
I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)
