M/S SHIV STEEL INDUSTRIES v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
WP(C)/1886/2025 · 2025-04-03
Manish Choudhury
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10251 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10251 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010070432025
2025:GAU-AS:4158
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1886/2025 M/S SHIV STEEL INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT DHANUKA COMPLEX, BLOCK - C, S. J. ROAD, ATHGAON, P. O. GUWAHATI- 781001, DISTRICT - KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI RATAN LAL BHATI. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXES CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS 3RD FLOOR GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO GUWAHATI-781001.
4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Page No.# 2/2 GUWAHATI DIVISION-1 GST BHAWAN ROOM NO. 213 KEDAR ROAD FANCY BAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-781001.
5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RANGE 1F GUWAHATI DIVISION 1 ROOM NO-215 GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. O P BHATI, MR T C DAS,MR. P SARMA,S. K. GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, GST
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 04.04.2025
Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST for all the respondents. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST has submitted that he has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed with the liberty to file afresh. JUDGE Comparing Assistant