M/S Dipankar Banik And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had not demonstrated diligence in prosecuting the writ petition. The numerous defects in the filing, including an improperly executed affidavit, indicated a lack of seriousness. Consequently, the Court found that the equitable jurisdiction of the High Court had been invoked by litigants who had not shown the required diligence. While the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to re-file, the Court declined to grant this liberty. The Court stated that the writ petition stood closed on withdrawal but explicitly refused to grant the liberty to re-file due to the petitioners' lack of diligence. The specific GST issue raised by the show cause notice was not adjudicated upon.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Dipankar Banik and another, approached the Gauhati High Court challenging a show cause notice dated July 22, 2022, issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Bongaigaon Division, Dhubri. The writ petition was filed on January 6, 2023. The Court noted that despite multiple opportunities, the petitioners failed to rectify several defects in their petition, including an unfilled filing form, lack of indexing, absence of court fee stamps, and blank paragraphs in the affidavit. The Court also observed that the affidavit verifying the petition was improperly executed, with a blank paragraph and a Notary Public stamp affixed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition, as filed, is maintainable given the numerous defects and the petitioners' lack of diligence in rectifying them, as required by the Court's procedural rules? 2. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to re-file, considering their failure to prosecute the case diligently? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners, through their counsel, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-file. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the merits of the show cause notice or the underlying GST issue. Revenue's Argument: None appears on behalf of the respondents (CGST authorities). Therefore, no arguments were recorded from the revenue side.