[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Aida Bitumex And Anr vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 4 May, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010083712026
2026:GAU-AS:6037
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2300/2026
AIDA BITUMEX AND ANR
HOLDING GSTIN 18CCVPS4070H1ZX A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AND GODOWN AT VILL. MIKIRPARA, SARDOI,
PAMOHI - 781035, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MRS.
SHAHINA SULTANA.
2: MRS SHAHINA SULTANA
WIFE OF SHAHBAZ HAIDER
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PATNA
BIHAR
PRESENTLY RESIDED AT VILL. MIKIRPARA
SARDOI
PAMOHI781035
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, FINANCE (TAXATION)
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI
-781006, ASSAM
2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006
ASSAM
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (SGST)
ASSAM
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006
Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM
4:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (SGST)
UNIT-B
GUWAHATI
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -781006
ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (SGST)
UNIT-B
GUWAHATI
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006
ASSAM
6:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (SGST)
UNIT - B-2
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006
ASSAM
7:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAX
UNIT-B
GUWAHATI
(MINAKHI BORGOHAIN)
OFFICE AT KAR BHAWAN
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -781006
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G RENGMA, A K JHA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION,
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
04.05.2026
Heard Mr. A.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned
Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department for all the respondents.
2. The petitioners has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-
a. Direct the respondents to immediately return all goods, documents,
inventories, and materials seized, which are neither relied upon in adjudication
nor forming part of any valid or subsisting investigation, and whose continued
retention is wholly without authority of law.
b. Direct the respondents to forthwith revoke the suspension of the petitioner's
GST registration, which has been continued without adherence to the statutory
mandate and in violation of principles of natural justice.
c. Direct the respondents to lift and revoke the provisional attachment of the
petitioner's operation bank account, imposed under Section 83 of the
CGST/AGST Act, being illegal, unsustainable, and devoid of jurisdiction,
particularly post-adjudication.
d. Direct the respondents to place on record the entire file, including satisfaction
note, reasons to believe, and records forming basis of search, seizure and
attachment.
e. Restrain the respondents from re-agitating or including demands already
Page No.# 4/6
adjudicated and presently pending before the appellate forum in any parallel or
ongoing proceedings, being impermissible in law and amounting to multiplicity
and abuse of process.
f. Quash and set aside the impugned search authorization issued in Form GST
INS-01 dated 21.05.2025, as well as the summons dated 28.05.2025, being
vitiated by absence of jurisdictional foundation, lack of proper 'reason to believe',
and constituting a disproportionate and duplicate exercise of power and
procedural overreach being without jurisdiction, disproportionate and
amounting to abuse of statutory process.
g. Direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the unlawful,
arbitrary, and extra-statutory actions resulting in illegal retention of goods and
documents, illegal freezing of bank account without due process, suspension of
GST registration without lawful justification and paralyzing the lawful business
operation from one year; quantified at such amount as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, considering loss of goodwill, business disruption, and unlawful
deprivation of property.
h. Award exemplary costs against the respondents, in view of abuse of statutory
power, repeated non-compliance with statutory mandates, failure to respond to
lawful representations, compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court
for enforcement of basic rights.
i. Pass such further or other orders, including directions for institutional
accountability and compliance with statutory safeguards, as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper.
3. The petitioners had preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3576/2025 earlier and during
the pendency of the writ petition, an Order under Section 74 of the AGST Act, 2017 was
Page No.# 5/6
passed on 31.12.2025 and also an Order of even date under Section 74A of the AGST Act,
was passed. In other words, it was during the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no.
3576/2025, the Orders dated 31.12.2025 were passed.
4. Taking note of the Orders dated 31.12.2025, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3576/2025
was dismissed with the following observations :-
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
pleadings on record, this court is to the view that the writ petition was filed
putting a challenge to the process undertaken by the respondent for suspension
of the GST registration; the attachment of the bank account and raising any
demands in terms of the proceedings which were undertaken and also to return
the documents and inventories materials seized unlawfully according to the
petitioner and further to quash the proceedings under INS-01 issued on
21.05.2025. During the pendency of this petition, since the final orders have
already been passed under Sections 74 and 74A of the CGST Act and there are
adequate appellate provisions prescribed under the statute, the question of the
legality of the procedure undertaken by the respondent authorities which is
assailed in the present writ petition, according to this Court will not serve any
useful purpose as in the meantime the respondent authorities have concluded the
proceedings and have passed final orders dated 31.12.2025 and which order as on
date the petitioner has not assailed till date. As admitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, there is no specific challenge to the impugned order, either in
the present writ petition or in any other proceedings before this Court.
9. Under such circumstances, this court does not find any merit in the present
writ petition to entertain the grievances raised by the petitioner in view of the
final orders dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent authorities. The writ
petition being devoid to any merit and the same stands dismissal. No order as to
cost.
Page No.# 6/6
10. The dismissal of the writ petition however will not curtail the right of the
petitioners to assail the order passed by the respondent authorities pursuant to
the summons issued vide order dated 31.12.2025.
5. On a query, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no appeal as on
date against the orders as required under the provisions of the AGST Act can be said to be
pending before the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that though an appeal has been preferred against the Orders dated 31.12.2025, the appeal
has been filed without the requisite pre-deposit as prescribed by the AGST Act, 2017
6. Having regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the purport of the Order
dated 27.01.2026 passed in W.P.[C] no. 3576/2025, this Court is of the considered view that
the writ petition was dismissed on 27.01.2026, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to assail
the Orders dated 31.12.2025 by way of an appeal wherein all the reliefs sought for in this writ
petition would be available to the petitioners to be agitated before the appellate forum. In
such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the instant writ
petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
