Hansbir Betala vs. The Union Of INDIA
Facts
This matter concerns an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 362/2026) filed before the Gauhati High Court seeking corrections to a previous order dated January 30, 2026, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 436/2026. The petitioner is Hansbir Betala, and the respondents are the Union of India, the Joint Director of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, and officials from the GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Guwahati. The application highlights several typographical errors in the original order concerning the specific sections of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, that were referenced. The court was asked to correct these references to ensure accuracy in the record.
Held
The Court held that the typographical errors identified by the petitioner in the order dated January 30, 2026, passed in WP(C) No. 436/2026, were indeed present and required correction. The Court found that the references to various sections of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, were inadvertently incorrect. The reasoning was based on the direct submission by the petitioner and the apparent nature of the errors. The Court accepted the proposed corrections as presented by the petitioner. The operative direction was to correct the order dated January 30, 2026, by incorporating the specified amendments to the section numbers. This order is to be read in conjunction with the original order. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the references to Sections 119 and 122(1A) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, in the order dated January 30, 2026, passed in WP(C) No. 436/2026, were accurate. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that several sections were incorrectly cited in the original order. Specifically, they pointed out that in paragraph 2, "Section 119 and 122(1A)" should have read "Section 122(1)(xix) and 122(1A)". In paragraph 3, "Section 122(1A) and 119" should have been "Section 122(1)(xix)," and in paragraph 10, "Section 122 and 119" should have been "Section 122(1)(xix)". Finally, in paragraph 11, "Section 119, 122(1A)" should have been "Section 122(1A)". The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding these corrections.
Sections Cited
Section 122(1A), Section 122(1)(xix), Section 119
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023402026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/362/2026 HANSBIR BETALA SON OF SHRI M. C. BETALA, RESIDENT OF CARE OF MC BETALA AND CO, 1ST FLOOR, SHREE RAM MARKET, CHHATRIBARI, GUWAHATI- 781001, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, FINANCEAND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2:THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE 77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWAL ROAD OPP. SRIMANTA SANKARDEVA KALAKSHETRA P.O. PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037. 3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI. 4:THE ADDITIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI -781001
Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR. A. KAUSHIK,B SARMA,MR P K BORA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR. N N DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTI
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.