Mahagun (INDIA) Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST And Another
Held
The Court acknowledged the revenue's preliminary objection regarding the statutory remedy of appeal. It also noted the petitioner's submission about the non-communication of the order through offline means and their subsequent unawareness. Citing the law laid down by a coordinate bench in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025:AHC:229995-DB, the Court decided to leave the issue of limitation to be tested before the appeal forum. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to avail its statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the refund rejection or the communication issue, deferring these to the appellate authority.
Facts
The petitioner, Mahagun (India) Private Limited, challenged an order dated 28.11.2023, which rejected its refund claim. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not communicated offline but only uploaded on the Common Portal, and they were unaware of it until 10/12.04.2026. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted a coordinate bench's decision in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025:AHC:229995-DB, concerning the issue of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the order rejecting its refund claim, as contended by the revenue? 2. Whether the petitioner's unawareness of the order, due to its communication solely through the Common Portal, impacts the availability or limitation period for filing an appeal? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not communicated offline and they were unaware of it until 10/12.04.2026. They implicitly argued that this lack of proper communication should be considered in the context of their available remedies. Contentions of the Revenue: The revenue contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2446 of 2026 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Heard Shri Tanuj Kumar Takkar (through video conference) and Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue.
Challenge has been raised to the order dated 28.11.2023 whereby the petitioner's refund claim had been rejected.
At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue has raised preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. Further, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner through offline mode. It was merely uploaded on the Common Portal. Petitioner was not aware of the same till 10/12.04.2026. 4. Leaving the issue of limitation to be tested before the appeal forum presently in view of the law laid down by the coordinate bench of this Court in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025:AHC:229995-DB, the present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to avail its statutory remedy of appeal, in accordance with law. May 7, 2026 Prakhar Versus Counsel for
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.