Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040002862025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : MC(WP(C))/2/2025 Langkung Ragia Son of Langkung Asuk, proprietor of M/s Ragia Ku Enterprise, having their business at Narba Colony, ESS Sector, Ganga, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791113 VERSUS The Union of India nad 5 Ors represented by the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2:The Tax Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : CGST and CX Itanagar Division Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 3:The Assistant Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Central Goods and Service Tax Itanagar Division Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 4:The Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Age: 0 Occupation : O/o Commissioner CGST and CX Itanagar Sector A Page No.# 2/3 Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 791110 5:The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Age: 0 Occupation : 1st Floor Tower NBCC Plaza 1 Sector 5 PushpVihar New Delhi 110017 6:The Chairperson Age: 0 Occupation : Goods and Services Tax Council 5th Floor Tower II Jeevan Bharti Building Janapath Road Connaught Place New Delhi 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : Dakjum Riba, Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25-02-2025 Heard Ms D. Riba, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI and Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing, CBIC and GST. The present application is filed for recalling the order dated 29.01.2025 whereby the writ petition No.223(AP)/2024 was dismissed for Page No.# 3/3 non-prosecution. Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing, CBIC and GST and Mr. M. Ete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI submits that they have no instruction to object the restoration of the writ petition. Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing, CBIC and GST, further submits that by virtue of an subsequent amendment in GST, the grievance of the petitioner raised in the writ petition might have already been redressed. Perused the statement and explanation given in the present application for none appearance of the learned counsel for the parties, also considered the submissions of the parties. Considering the matter in entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able make out a case for recalling of order dated 29.01.2025 in WP(C) No.223(AP)/2024 and accordingly, order dated 29.01.2025 in WP(C) No.223(AP)/2024 is recalled. The writ petition is restored with original file. The present application stands disposed of. After restoration of the writ petition to original file, Registry to list the restored WP(C) No.223(AP)/2024 on 11.03.2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant