Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010006462023 2025:GAU-AS:16642 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6787/2025 M/S S.K. TRADERS AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT H. NO. 13, WARD NO. 13, SONAI ROAD, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788006 2: SHIBDAS KANGSA BANIK S/O LATE HARESHWAR KANGSA BANIK H.NO. 13 WARD NO. 13 SONAI ROAD SILCHAR ASSAM-78800 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT H.N. 77 WARD NO. 54 KALAKSHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781037 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DGGI GUWAHATI ASSA Page No.# 2/3 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Saha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 03.12.2025 Heard Mr. S.K. Saha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. None appears on behalf of the CGST on call. 3. The petitioners herein has approached this Court challenging the show cause notice dated 22.08.2022 issued by the Deputy Director, Guwahati. 4. It is relevant to take note of that the writ petition was filed on 07.01.2023. The record further reveals that on various occasions the petitioners were given opportunities to make corrections, but the petitioners failed to do so. The defects that remained in the writ petition were as follows. (a) Court Fee not paid; (b) Paragraphs are not filled up in the Vakalatnama; (c) Index is incomplete; (d) Annexures are not certified; Page No.# 3/3 (e) Notice is not served on the respondents. 5. This Court further takes note of the affidavit filed to verify the contents of the writ petition and the said affidavit under no circumstances can be said to be an affidavit. It really surprises this Court, as to how, the Notary Public affixed a stamp on such an affidavit which is incomplete. 6. Considering the above, it therefore appears that the petitioners have not been diligent in the instant proceedings and the instant writ petition was filed merely for the sake of filing. 7. Today, when the matter is listed Mr. S.K. Saha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would like to withdraw the instant writ petition with a liberty to re-file. 8. Taking into account the said prayer, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 9. However, this Court declines to grant such liberty in view of the fact that the equitable jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by litigants who have not shown any diligence. JUDGE Comparing Assistant