M/S Rajkonwar And Sons vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the interlocutory application (I.A.(Civil)/1709/2026) stands closed in view of the order passed on the same date, 11.08.2026, in the accompanying writ petition being WP(C)No.4367/2022. Consequently, any interim order that was passed earlier in relation to this interlocutory application stands vacated. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST dispute or the specific contentions raised in the writ petition, as the order pertains solely to the procedural closure of the interlocutory application based on the disposition of the main writ petition. The reasoning is that the interlocutory application was ancillary to the main writ petition, and its continuation or disposal was contingent upon the outcome or order in the main case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajkonwar and Sons, a proprietorship firm represented by its proprietor Shri Sanjib Rajkonwar, filed an interlocutory application (I.A.(Civil)/1709/2026) before the Gauhati High Court. This application was filed in connection with a writ petition, WP(C)No.4367/2022. The respondents include the Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; the Principal Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax; the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh Division; the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Assam; the Public Works Department (PWD) Department, Government of Assam; the State of Assam, represented by the Principal Commissioner of State Taxes, Assam; and the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Dibrugarh Unit. The interlocutory application was disposed of in view of an order passed on the same date in the accompanying writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interlocutory application (I.A.(Civil)/1709/2026) is to be closed in view of the order passed in the accompanying writ petition (WP(C)No.4367/2022)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, through their counsel Ms. N Gogoi, did not present specific arguments for the interlocutory application itself, but its fate was tied to the main writ petition. The application was filed in connection with the writ petition, implying that its purpose was to seek interim relief or address procedural matters related to the main case. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, represented by Mr. SC Keyal (Senior Advocate & Standing Counsel, GST), Mr. K Jain, and Mr. M Bhuyan (for respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6), did not present specific arguments on the interlocutory application. Their position was implicitly aligned with the court's decision on the main writ petition and the interlocutory application's connection to it.