Kartik Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a penalty order under Section 22 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, arguing the penalty was excessive. A rectification application concerning this penalty was pending.
Held
The High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, finding no good ground to interfere given the pending statutory remedy. The rectification application was directed to be decided by a specific date.
Key Issues
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal and rectification is available and pending? Whether the penalty imposed under Section 22 is excessive?
Sections Cited
Section 22, Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3892 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Present petition has been filed for F.Y. 2019-2020. 2. Having heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue, it transpires that against the penalty order passed under Section 22 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, besides the remedy of appeal, the petitioner also has a remedy of rectification under Section 161 of the said Act.
As a fact though the petitioner has yet not filed the statutory appeal, in view of the language of Section 22(1) and in the context of the penalty order that has been passed, the petitioner contends that the penalty imposed equivalent to 100% of the disputed ITC is excessive.
With respect to that grievance his rectification application filed on 02.04.2025 is still pending. That fact has been pleaded in paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition.
Keeping in mind the remedy availed and the pendency of the rectification application thus filed, we do not find any good ground to exercise our extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kartik Enterprises .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
declined. However, it is provided, the rectification application may be dealt with and decided necessarily on or before 30 November 2025 after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the manner provided.
With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 Abhilash WTAX No. 3892 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.