M/S Spice Retails Ltd. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Posta Bazar Charge & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S Spice Retails Ltd. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Posta Bazar Charge & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeals before the appropriate authority on the selfsame grounds (except vires); appellate authority directed to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period of pendency before this Court; liberty to take back certified copies upon furnishing photocopies; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant may withdraw the appeals and pursue its challenge on merits before the appellate authority instead of this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the vires challenge has been settled by judgments of this Court and the appellant now restricts the challenge to merits, the period spent in pendency of the appeals before this Court ought not to be taken into consideration for counting limitation.

Ratio / Principle

MAT No. 840 of 2017 and MAT No. 844 of 2017 with their connected CANs are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh appeals before the appropriate authority on the selfsame grounds as in the present appeals, apart from that of vires.

Key takeaways

If such fresh appeals are filed, the appellate authority shall take into consideration the period of pendency of the appeals before this Court and grant the appellant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶13
The learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant is granted liberty to take back the certified copies of the impugned judgments/orders for preferring the fresh appeals, upon furnishing photocopies thereof for the records.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tax appeals (MAT Nos. 840 and 844 of 2017 with connected CANs of 2020) by M/s. Spice Retails Limited dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh appeals before the appropriate appellate authority on the selfsame grounds except vires. The vires challenge was not pressed as it stood settled by prior judgments of this Court. The Court held that the period of pendency of the appeals before it shall not count towards limitation and directed the appellate authority, if fresh appeals are filed and the conditions in Section 84(1) are complied with, to entertain them and grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in line with the course adopted in a co-ordinate Bench judgment in MAT No. 783 of 2017. Liberty given to the Advocate-on-record to take back certified copies upon furnishing photocopies. No order as to costs.

D/L.2 & 3. May 11, 2026. MNS.

MAT No. 840 of 2017 + CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN 5114 of 2020) + CAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN 5115 of 2020) + CAN 4 of 2020 (Old CAN 5116 of 2020) With MAT No. 844 of 2017 + CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN 5110 of 2020) + CAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN 5112 of 2020) + CAN 4 of 2020 (Old CAN 5113 of 2020)

M/s. Spice Retails Limited Vs. The Sales Tax Officer and others

Mr. Rahul Tangri, Mr. Shovit Betal, Advs.

… for the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeals with liberty to file before the appellate authority.

Learned counsel cites a co-ordinate Bench judgment passed in MAT No. 783 of 2017, where the Division Bench granted similar opportunity, however, further observing that if such appeals are filed and the conditions in Section 84(1) are complied with, the appellate authority shall entertain the appellants’ appeals without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation.

We find from the submissions of the appellant that the present appeals were filed not only on merits but also

2

challenging the vires of the certain provisions, due to which those were filed before this Court and not the appellate authority. However, as the issue of vires has since been settled by judgments of this Court, the same does not remain relevant and the appellant now seeks to restrict the challenge to the merits of the case, which can very well be canvassed before the appellate authority.

In the above backdrop, the period spent in pendency of the appeals before this Court ought not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting limitation.

Hence, MAT No. 840 of 2017 along with CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN 5114 of 2020), CAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN 5115 of 2020) and CAN 4 of 2020 (Old CAN 5116 of 2020) and MAT No. 844 of 2017 along with CAN 2 of 2020 (Old CAN 5110 of 2020), CAN 3 of 2020 (Old CAN 5112 of 2020) and CAN 4 of 2020 (Old CAN 5113 of 2020) are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellant to file fresh appeals against the orders impugned herein on the selfsame grounds as in the present appeals, apart from that of vires, before the appropriate authority.

If such appeals are filed, the appellate authority shall take into consideration the period of pendency of the appeals before this Court and grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the appellant.

The learned Advocate-on-record for the appellant is granted liberty to take back the certified copies of the impugned judgments/orders for the purpose of preferring

3

such appeals before the appellate authority, upon furnishing photocopies thereof for the records.

There will be no order as to costs.

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)