M/S Saurabh Enterprises v. State Of U.P. And Another

Court
Allahabad High Court
Case number
WTAX/3726/2026
Date of judgment
10 Sept 2026
Bench
SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI,SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
Petitioner
M/S SAURABH ENTERPRISES
Respondent
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
CNR
UPHC015325092026

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3726 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for Financial Year 2020-2021.

3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that owing to lack of knowledge of the order dated 27.02.2025, the petitioner could not avail its statutory remedy of appeal, within limitation. At present the petitioner is disabled from filing appeal as the maximum period for which delay may be condoned, has expired.

5. By a separate order passed today in Writ Tax No. 2889 of 2026, in similar circumstances, on a fair confession made by the State, to allow statutory appeals to be filed within a period of two weeks from today, that writ petition has been disposed of.

6. In view of similar concession made in the present facts, no further adjudication is required in the facts of this case. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation, subject to the petitioner availing statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the said appeal may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the stand of the State, noticed above.

7. Any amount that may have been deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make pre deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty etc.

September 11, 2026 Bhanu Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) :

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) :

C.S.C.

(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)

M/S Saurabh Enterprises .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Original PDF on the eCourts judgment service →

Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.