M/S. Saha Distributors PVT. LTD. vs. The Director General (East), Directorate General Of Gsti And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saha Distributors Pvt. Ltd., is before the High Court in WPA 4167 of 2025. The case concerns an order dated 14th July, 2025. The Union of India, represented by Mr. Smarjit Roy Chowdhury, and the CGST authority, represented by Mr. Kaushik Dey and Mr. Tapan Bhamja, are the respondents. The primary procedural issue brought before the court is that Mr. Roy Chowdhury's name was not recorded in the appearances of the order dated 14th July, 2025, despite his presence in court. The petitioner is not directly involved in this procedural correction.

Held

The Court directed that the name of the learned advocate representing the Union of India, Mr. Smarjit Roy Chowdhury, be recorded in the appearances of the parties of the order dated 14th July, 2025. The Department was instructed to carry out this correction. The Court further stated that all other portions of the said order shall remain unaltered. The decision is based on the submission made by the Union of India's counsel regarding his presence in court. The ratio decidendi is that court records should accurately reflect the appearances of counsel present during proceedings. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied in this procedural correction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the name of the learned advocate representing the Union of India, Mr. Smarjit Roy Chowdhury, should be recorded in the appearances of the order dated 14th July, 2025, given his presence in court. This is a procedural issue concerning the accuracy of court records. Contentions: Petitioner: Not recorded. Revenue/State (Union of India): Submitted that their advocate, Mr. Smarjit Roy Chowdhury, was present in court but his name was not recorded in the order dated 14th July, 2025. They requested that his name be recorded.