Allowed

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Nov 2023I.A.(Civil)/2934/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interlocutory application seeking impleadment of the Income Tax Commissioner as a necessary party in a connected writ petition regarding GST refund was allowed by a single judge of the Gauhati High Court.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application allowing impleadment of opposite party no. 4 as a necessary party allowed. Petitioner directed to file amended Cause-Title within 3 days.

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — GST and Indirect Tax | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010218342023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2934/2023

¶5

M/S RANA CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS PVT LTD SURAJ COMPLEX, ULUBARI CHARIALI, KAMRUP(METRO), GUWAHATI781007, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, RANA ZAMAN, S/O- ALHAZ RAHMAN ALI, R/O- HOUSE NO. 62, RAHMAN MANSION, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O. ULUBARI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, GUWAHATI-7.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶8

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶9

PWD ROADS ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD

¶11

DISPUR TERRITORIAL ROAD DIVISION GUWAHATI-781021.

¶12

4:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

¶13

ASSAM KAR BHAWAN GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-781006

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD ROAD

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶18

ORDER

¶19

08.11.2023

¶20

Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant-writ petitioner; Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 – 3.

¶21

This interlocutory application has been preferred seeking impleadment of the opposite party no. 4 as a party-respondent in the connected writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 4977/2023.

¶22

The applicant as the writ petitioner, has preferred the connected writ petition seeking refund of excess GST paid in connection with a contract-work undertaken on behalf of the Public Works Department [PWD]. It has been averred that while preferring the writ petition, the applicant-writ petitioner inadvertently did not implead the opposite party no. 4 as a partyrespondent. It has also been averred that the opposite party no. 4 is a necessary party for adjudication of the issues involved in the connected writ petition.

¶23

Mr. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has not disputed the fact that the opposite party no. 4 would be a necessary party in respect of relief sought in the connected writ petition and has, thus, not objected to the prayer for impleadment.

¶24

I have gone through the statements and averments made in the interlocutory application and the issues raised in the connected writ petition. Considering the statements and averments made in the interlocutory application and the issues involved in the connected writ petition, it appears that the opposite party no. 4 is a necessary party for adjudication of

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

the issues involved in the connected writ petition. The interlocutory application is therefore, allowed.

¶27

Mr. Haque, learned counsel for the applicant-writ petitioner shall file an amended Cause-Title in terms of the Notification dated 79 dated 19.06.2023 within 3 [three] days from today. On filing of such amended Cause-Title, the office is to make the necessary correction in the Cause-Title of the connected writ petition and in the CIS and list the writ petition accordingly thereafter.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Borah and Company Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.

M/S Borah Automobiles and Transport Vs M/S Borah Transport and 3 Ors.

Diganta Buragohain Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Sabitri Patowary Vs State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Makram Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sita Ram Ojha Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.