D/L 03 Court no. 11 September 09, 2026. KAUSHIK Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri W.P.A. 1173 of 2022 Ranjit Kumar Prasad Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal), Alipurduar Zone & Ors. Mr. Sandip Choraria Mr. Akash Chakraborty Ms. Riya Agarwala … for the petitioner. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Learned AAAG Ms. Mrinmayee Das … for the State. 1. This is a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dated 23 February, 2022 passed under section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (WBGST). 2. Briefly, on 14 February, 2021 while the petitioner’s vehicle was carrying goods from Kanpur to West Bengal, the same was intercepted and detained on 16 February, 2021 by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal, Alipurduar Zone at Kalchini. The driver produced the documents but the officer detained the vehicle alongwith the goods and alleged that the movement of the goods were not covered by valid documents. On 14 February, 2021, the petitioner also submitted the sales invoice and e-waybill and stated that 2 there had been a bonafide mistake of the driver. Nevertheless, the petitioner had been directed to pay tax and penalty. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order under section 107 of the Act of 2017, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is primarily contended on behalf of the petitioner that all proper and lawful documents have been generated at the point of detention and the petitioner was covered by all valid documents. In this background, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are misconceived and not tenable in law. 4. On behalf of the State Authorities, it is submitted that under the scheme of the Act of 2017, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under section 112 of the Act of 2017, which provides for appeals to the Tribunal. For convenience, section 112 of the Act of 2017 is set out below: “Section 112. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under section 107 or section 108 of this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit any such appeal where the tax or input tax credit involved or the difference in tax or input tax credit involved or the amount of fine, fee or penalty determined by such order, does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. (3) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Tribunal within six months from the date on which the said order has been passed; for determination of such 3 points arising out of the said order as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order. (4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3) the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal made against the order under sub-section (11) of section 107 or under sub- section (1) of section 108 and the provisions of this Act shall apply to such application, as they apply in relation to appeals filed under sub-section (1). (5) On receipt of notice that an appeal has been preferred under this section, the party against whom the appeal has been preferred may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, file, within forty-five days of the receipt of notice, a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order appealed against and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal, as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (1). (6) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal within three months after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1) or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections within forty-five days after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (5) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. (7) An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in such form, verified in such manner and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed. (8) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid- (a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him, and (b) a sum equal to twenty per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount paid under sub- section (6) of section 107, arising from the said order, [subject to a maximum of [Fifty crore rupees] , in relation to which the appeal has been filed. (9) Where the appellant has paid the amount as per sub- section (8), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (10) Every application made before the Appellate Tribunal,- (a) in an appeal for rectification of error or for any other purpose; or (b) for restoration of an appeal or an application, shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.” 5. Admittedly, the Tribunal was not functional at the time of filing of this writ petition and it was only on 12 August, 2026 that a Technical Member has now been appointed and the Tribunal is fully operational. In such circumstances, the writ petition cannot pursue this petition any further and the petitioner should be directed to file a statutory appeal under 4 section 112 of the Act of 2017. In such cases, the petitioner/assessee cannot benefit from avoiding payment of the mandatory statutory deposit. 6. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that at paragraph 19, the petitioner has unequivocally averred that since there is no adequate and alternative remedy because the Tribunal had not yet been constituted, the petitioner had been compelled to file this writ petition. 7. In view of the subsequent events which have transpired after the filing of the appeal and the availability of the Tribunal, the writ petition ought not to be proceeded with any further. In view of the above, WPA 1173 of 2022 stands dismissed. [Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603; M/s. Hypertherm (India) Thermal Cutting Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax III Division, an unreported decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 341 of 2017]. 8. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to file a statutory appeal under section 112 of the Act of 2017 within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order. 9. It is made clear that there has been no expression on the merits of the case and all 5 issues are left open for the Tribunal to decide in accordance with law. In adjudicating the aspect of limitation, the Tribunal shall take into consideration the pendency of this writ petition and the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 10. All interim orders stand vacated. (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)