M/S Nikhat Enterprises Thru. Partners And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to Respondent No. 2. The direction mandates Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. This decision is to be made within a period of three months from the date a copy of the High Court's order is presented to Respondent No. 2. The Court did not rule on the petitioner's primary prayer for installment payments, as the focus shifted to the procedural aspect of deciding the representation. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not detailed in the judgment.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Nikhat Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 (an unnamed authority) to permit them to deposit outstanding tax dues in twenty-four equal monthly installments under Section 80 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide their statutory representation dated November 21, 2025, within a specified time. The petitioner stated that they had already made a representation to Respondent No. 2 and the limited prayer was for a reasoned and speaking order on that representation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to permit the deposit of outstanding tax dues in twenty-four equal monthly installments under Section 80 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to decide their statutory representation dated November 21, 2025, within a time-bound period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought directions from the court for installment payments and for the expeditious decision of their pending representation by the respondent authority. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondent side regarding the prayers made by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 80
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1572 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- a) Issue a writ; order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.2 to permit the Petitioner Firm to deposit the outstanding tax dues in twenty-four (24) equal monthly instalments under Section 80 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No. 2 to decide the Petitioner's statutory representation dated 21.11.2025 annexed as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition within a time-bound period. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already made a representation to Respondent No.
The limited prayer is for a direction to be issued to Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation through a reasoned and speaking order. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date a c
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.