M/S Jrd Infratech Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3887 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abrar Ahmad, learned counsel for Union of India and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.
Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in a nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure No.1) under Section 73 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 passed by the respondent no.4."
Submission is that the adjudication impugned order dated 14.08.2024 has been passed without assigning any reason. Also it has been submitted that the same has been passed after two months from the last date for hearing communicated to the petitioner. Third, it has been objected that the service of the order was not made on the petitioner till as late as June, 2025. At that stage, the petitioner was telephonically informed about the order with reference to recovery proceedings that were under way. Acting thereon the petitioner has approached the Court on 08.07.2025. Therefore, the present petition may be entertained.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has objected that the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice dated 26.05.2024. He did not file any reply thereto. Therefore, the demand proposed in the show cause notice has been confirmed. No other reason was required to be furnished in absence of any objection raised by the petitioner. As to the order being passed after two months from the date fixed, it has been submitted no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harsh Vardhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, C.S.C. M/S Jrd Infratech Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he did not file any reply even during that period of time. On the issue of service of the order, objection has been raised. It has been submitted that order has been served on the petitioner in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while no interference may be warranted on the first two aspects in exercise of our extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as those grounds may remain open to the petitioner to be tested in appropriate statutory appeal proceedings, on the issue of delay, considering the facts noted above, it does appear that there may have been delay in communication of the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction subject to the petitioner filing appeal against the impugned order within a period not later than 17th October, 2025. That appeal may be entertained on its own merit without raising any objection as the petitioner appears to have approached this Court soon after the communication as claimed. October 6, 2025 Mohit WTAX No. 3887 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA 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.