Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34583 (CHH)

LATA J. TYAGI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/755/2023 · 2026-08-31

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010029692023 2026:CGHC:38751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 755 of 2023 1 - Lata J. Tyagi W/o Mukesh Tyagi Aged About 43 Years Joint Commissioner (Enforcement), State Tax, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of State Tax, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner State Tax, Gst Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Bhavana Ali Netam Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title, as taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.03 15:11:12 +0530 2 i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 6/3/2021 (Annexure-P/1A) and 26/11/2021 (Annexure-P/1B) passed by the respondent No.1. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. Iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. On previous date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. Even today, despite repeated calls, neither the petitioner appeared in person nor represented by any counsel. In this circumstance, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the instant petition for want of prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar