Jyote Motors Bengal Private ... vs Additional Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 3554 Cal

18.5.2023
   ks                      WPA 8784 of 2023
 sl. 27
               Jyote Motors Bengal Private Limited & Anr.
                                  Vs
            Additional Director, Directorate General of Goods &
            Service Tax Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit & Ors.

            Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff,
            Miss Priya Sarah Paul
                          ... For the Petitioners.
            Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee,
            Mr. Tapan Bhanja
                           ... For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, DSGI, Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri ... For the UOI.

Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP., Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh, Mr. V. Kothari ... For the State.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties.

By this writ petition, petitioners have challenged

the legality and validity of the impugned order in

original dated 19th January, 2023, passed by the

respondent authority concerned under the CGST Act.

Though the aforesaid impugned order is an appealable

order under the statute but since pure question of law

involving interpretation of Section 16(4) of the CGST

Act, is involved and considering the judgment dated

22nd April, 2016, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied

upon by the learned Advocate appearing for the

petitioners in the case of Aircel Ltd. vs. Commercial

Tax Officer, in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1055 and 1057

of 2013, reported in MANU/SC/0851/2016, this writ

petition is being entertained on condition of making

payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount of

Rs.2,26,74,585/- within two weeks from date. If such

payment is made within the time stipulated herein, no

coercive action for recovery of the demand arising out

of the impugned order in original shall be taken by the

respondents. In case of failure to make payment

within the time stipulated herein, this interim order

will not have any force.

Respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-

opposition within four weeks after the summer

vacation. Petitioners to file reply thereto, if any,

within two weeks thereafter.

List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list

of August, 2023.

At the time of hearing, parties should be ready with

the short written notes of arguments.

It is recorded that though the petitioners have

made prayer challenging the Constitutional validity of

Section 16(4) of the aforesaid Act and the relevant

Rules but have not pressed for the same.

( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )