M/S Swiftflow Distribution LLP Thru. Authorised Person vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax And 4 Others
Held
The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was straightforward: the petitioner's main grievances, which included the inability to file an appeal due to technical issues and the subsequent demand for penalty, were addressed by the subsequent registration of the appeal on the online portal. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel themselves stated that the prayers made in the writ petition had become infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that once the substantive issue that formed the basis of a writ petition is resolved by subsequent events, the petition itself becomes moot and does not require further adjudication by the High Court. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as having become infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Swiftflow Distribution Llp, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 08.11.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4. The petitioner sought to quash this order, direct Respondent No. 3 to accept their appeal manually due to technical failures on the GST portal, and to release seized goods (34,480 Kgs of Scrap Batteries) and a vehicle (Registration No. RJ04GD5349) without demanding a penalty of Rs. 43,27,285/-. The petitioner also prayed for rectification of technical glitches on the GST portal by Respondent No. 5 (GSTN) and a prohibition against coercive action. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner's appeal was registered on the online GST portal on 03.12.2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous given that the petitioner's appeal has been registered on the online GST portal. This issue turns on the principle of mootness in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the registration of the appeal on the portal rendered the primary prayers of the writ petition moot. The State Respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point, but their silence implies acceptance of the situation leading to the petition becoming infructuous. The Court had to decide if the subsequent event of appeal registration negated the need for the High Court's intervention through writ.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1445 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
We have heard Sri Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order No. ZD0911251465469 dated 08.11.2025 (ANNEXURE-1) passed by the Respondent No. 4; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to accept the Appeal of the Petitioner in Form GST APL-01 manually/physically and treat it as filed within the limitation period, considering the technical failure of the GST Portal; III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith release the goods (34,480 Kgs of Scrap Batteries) and the Vehicle bearing registration No. RJ04GD5349, without demanding the illegal penalty of Rs. 43,27,285/-; IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Versus Counsel
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.