Langkung Ragia vs. The Union Of INDIA Nad 5 Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Langkung Ragia, proprietor of M/s Ragia Ku Enterprise, filed an application seeking to recall an order dated January 29, 2025, by which his writ petition (WP(C) No. 223(AP)/2024) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondents, including the Union of India, Tax Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent (Anti Evasion), CBIC, and GST Council, were represented. The petitioner's counsel explained the absence leading to the dismissal. The respondents' counsel indicated they had no instructions to object to the restoration of the writ petition. One respondent counsel also suggested that a subsequent amendment in GST might have addressed the petitioner's grievance.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for recalling the order dated January 29, 2025. The Court considered the explanation provided for the non-appearance of the learned counsel for the parties and the submissions made. The respondents' counsel indicated no objection to the restoration. The Court found sufficient grounds to recall the previous order. Consequently, the order dated January 29, 2025, in WP(C) No. 223(AP)/2024 was recalled, and the writ petition was restored to its original file. The Court directed the Registry to list the restored writ petition for hearing on March 11, 2025. The application for recalling the order was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has made out a sufficient case for recalling the order dated January 29, 2025, which dismissed WP(C) No. 223(AP)/2024 for non-prosecution? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that there was a valid reason for the non-appearance of their counsel, leading to the dismissal. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and others, stated they had no instructions to object to the restoration of the writ petition. They also submitted that a subsequent amendment in GST law might have already redressed the petitioner's grievance, implying that the original writ petition's subject matter might be moot.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040002862025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : MC(WP(C))/2/2025 Langkung Ragia Son of Langkung Asuk, proprietor of M/s Ragia Ku Enterprise, having their business at Narba Colony, ESS Sector, Ganga, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791113
VERSUS The Union of India nad 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2:The Tax Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : CGST and CX Itanagar Division Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 3:The Assistant Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Central Goods and Service Tax Itanagar Division Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 4:The Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Age: 0 Occupation : O/o Commissioner CGST and CX Itanagar Sector A Page No.# 2/3 Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 5:The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Age: 0 Occupation : 1st Floor Tower NBCC Plaza 1 Sector 5 PushpVihar New Delhi 110017 6:The Chairperson Age: 0 Occupation : Goods and Services Tax Counc
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.