Shree Shyam Inorganics Private ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4157 Cal

Item no. 07


               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
              And
The Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak


                               MAT 634 of 2017
                                    with
                                CAN 1 of 2022
                                CAN 2 of 2022


              Shree Shyam Inorganics Private Limited & anr.
                                  vs.
                      State of West Bengal & ors.


Appearance:
For the Appellants                    :   Mr. B. P. Chakraborty
                                          Mr. Suvranil Saha

For the State respondent              : Mr. T. M. Siddiqui

Mr. Debasish Ghosh

Heard on : 12.07.2022

Judgment on : 12.07.2022

T.S. Sivagnanam J.:

We have heard learned counsel for the parties present.

This intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed

against the order dated 21.03.2022 passed in WPA 4704 of 2022. The

said writ petition was filed by the appellant for issuance of writ of

mandamus to set out the penalty imposed vide notice in Form GST

MOV-04 dated 09.02.2022 for consequential reliefs. The learned Single

Judge by the impugned order has directed the appellant to file a

statutory appeal.

We find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

just and proper and does not call for any interference especially when

the factual matrix has to be gone into to decide as to whether the

appellant is entitled to any relief and such exercise cannot be done in a

writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

brought to our notice the fact that since the goods were of volatile in

nature, there was a need to release the goods and therefore the

appellant had furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 8,95,067.00

and also executed a bond for the same amount which the bank

guarantee continues to remain valid. Pursuant to execution of the bond

and the bank guarantee, provisional release of the goods has been

granted to the appellant. The appellant is willing to avail the alternative

remedy but their only submission is that a sum of Rs. 8,95,067.00 has

been furnished as a bank guarantee and the Court may consider that

granting some relief.

Considering such submission, while affirming the order passed

by the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appeal, we slightly

modify the direction issued by the learned Single Judge by permitting

the appellant to substitute the bank guarantee of Rs. 8,95,067.00 and

the appellant is directed to effect the period of proceed as provided

under Section 84(1) of the Act within 3 days from the date on which the

fresh bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 7,95,067.00 is to be furnished

and if the said amount is paid in terms of Section 84(1) of the Act

alongwith the appeal, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal

without reference to the limitation and dispose of the same on merits

and in accordance with law.

In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, the connected applications stand disposed of.

(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)

Saswata/Amitava (AR. CT.)