M/S Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors.
Held
The Court noted the averments made in the affidavit filed by the State respondents, which indicated that the amount was recovered inadvertently and unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge about a court order. The affidavit explicitly stated that the deduction could be reverted to the applicant if the court gave such a direction. In view of these averments, the Court directed the respondents to revert the amount to the applicant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Miscellaneous Case was disposed of accordingly. The principle derived is that when a respondent admits to an inadvertent recovery and expresses willingness to rectify it, the court will direct the immediate reversion of the amount to the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited, filed a Miscellaneous Case (WPC) No. 178 of 2025 in WP(C) No. 245 of 2024 before the High Court of Meghalaya. The State respondents filed an affidavit stating that a certain amount was recovered inadvertently and unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge about a court order. The affidavit further stated that the deducted amount could be reverted to the applicant if the court directed so. The petitioner is represented by senior advocate Mr. S. Ghosh and others, while the respondents are represented by Dr. N. Mozika (DSGI) and Mr. N. Syngkon (GA). The case concerns a dispute over a recovered amount.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery of an amount by the enforcement branch was inadvertent and unintentional, as stated by the State respondents in their affidavit, and if so, what is the consequence? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, implicitly relies on the averments made by the State respondents in their affidavit, which acknowledge the inadvertent nature of the recovery. The petitioner seeks the reversion of the recovered amount. Revenue/State's Contention: The State respondents, through their counsel, have filed an affidavit admitting that the deduction made by the enforcement branch was unintentional and due to a lack of knowledge about a court order. They have stated their willingness to revert the amount to the applicant if directed by the court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 03 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
MC (WPC) No. 178 of 2025 in WP(C) No. 245 of 2024
Date of Order: 16.10.2025
M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited through its Authorised Representative, Umjarasi, Nongthymmai, Nongpoh Meghalaya-783102, GSTIN: 17AACCJ3827H12L.
…. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Government of India, New Delhi-110001
The State of Meghalaya through The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Meghalaya, Room No. 305, Additional Secretariat Building, Shillong-793001. 3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
The Additional Director, Directorate of General of Goods & Services Taxe Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, 3rd Floor, Old Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Building, Shillong-793001. 2025:MLHC:988-DB
The Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Shil
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 Meghalaya High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.