13.08.26 25 Ct. No.10 Sws.M WPA 4287 of 2026 Pal Hardware vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Malay Dhar Mr. Bhaskar Senguta Mr. Shouvik Naskar ….for the petitioner Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee Ms. Manasi Mukherjee ….for the State-respondents Mr. Subhendu Bandopadhyay Mr. Saikat Pal ….for the S.B.I. 1. The petitioner, in the instant writ petition challenges the legality, validity and the sustainability of the notice of attachment issued under Section 79(1)(e) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) by the respondent No. 2. 2. Apropos the facts of the case are that, the Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 21.12.2023 under Section 73 of the said Act for the period 2018-2019, on account of certain discrepancies detected in the returns furnished by the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, an order of adjudication dated 31.5.2024 was passed ex parte under Section 73 of the said Act for the said period. 2 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 3rd February, 2026. In the meantime, on 15th January, 2026, the respondent authorities initiated garnishee proceedings and recovered an amount of Rs.11,68,316/- against the total assessed demand of Rs.59,88,150/- . 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 03.02.2026, an amount of Rs.3,00,594/- has already been deposited towards pre-deposit for preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 6. It is further submitted that against the total demand of tax of Rs.30,05,934/-, interest of Rs.26,81,622/- and penalty of Rs.3,00,594/- i.e. aggregating to amount of Rs.59,88,150/- the petitioner has paid Rs.3,00,594/- by way of adjustment from Input Tax Credit. Further, an amount of Rs.11,68,316/- has been adjusted and recovered by the respondents towards Input Tax Credit already claimed. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 11,68,316/- has been received by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondent authorities in recovering the assessed demand, despite the appeal having been 3 preferred before the Appellate Authority, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. 8. It is also submitted that since 20% of the assessed demand has already been recovered, the respondent authorities be restrained from recovering the balance amount of the assessed demand, until the appeal attains its finality, and the petitioner be permitted to operate the Bank account for the purpose of running its business. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State- respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the appeal has been filed after the initiation of the garnishee proceedings and submits that the petitioner has not availed the Input Tax Credit available to it, thereby causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue. If the bank accounts are permitted to be operated, the revenue may suffer. 10. A substantial demand has been raised, the balance amount of the assessed demand should be secured until the appeal attains its finality. 11. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the records, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. 12. Accordingly, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner 4 as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31st October, 2026, without granting unnecessary adjournments, upon affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 13. It is made clear that since more than 10% of assessed demand has already been recovered by the respondent authorities and in addition to a sum of Rs.3,00,594/- has already been deposited towards pre-deposit for preferring the appeal, the respondent authorities are restrained from taking any further coercive steps to recover the balance amount of the assessed demand, until the appeal is finally decided by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to decide the issue with regard to the non- availment of the Input Tax Credit at the time of hearing the appeal. The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 14. Since the petitioner is carrying on a proprietorship business, in the interest of justice, the Bank account of the petitioner is permitted to be 5 operated by the petitioner. The attachment placed upon the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 11261188017 with the State Bank of India, Contai Branch, District – Purba Medinipur, is hereby lifted and the petitioner is permitted to operate the said bank account by keeping sufficient balance to satisfy the claim of the revenue, if ultimately upheld. However, as an abundant caution, without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, the balance of the account of the petitioner shall constantly be monitored by the banking authorities of the said branch, till the appeal attains its finality. Such monitoring will not debar the petitioner to operate the account for running its business. 15. It is made clear that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery in accordance with law in the event the appeal is dismissed and the demand is upheld. 16. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Smita Das De, J.)