Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010005892023 2025:GAU-AS:16638 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6781/2025 M/S DIPANKAR BANIK AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT RABINDRA PALLY, WARD NO. 12, DHUBRI, ASSAM-783301 2: DIPANKAR BANIK S/O SRI HARADHAN BANIK RABINDRA PALLY WARD NO. 12 DHUBRI ASSAM-78330 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 DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CE BONGAIGAON DIVISION NEAR GAURIPUR FIELD DHUBRI ASSAM-78330 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 22.07.2022 issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CE, Bongaigaon Division, Dhubri. 4. It is relevant to take note of that the writ petition was filed on 06.01.2023. 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) Filing form not filled up; (b) Petition not indexed; (c) No Court Fee Stamp affixed; Page No.# 3/3 (d) No paras filled up in the affidavit. 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 where paragraph No. 2 has been left blank. 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