M/S Air Expert INDIA vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Air Expert India, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an order in Form GST MOV-09 and a notice in DRC-01/Form GST MOV-07, both dated October 29, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Sector-4 (Mobile Squad 6), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow them to file an appeal against the order dated October 29, 2025, under Section 107 of the GST Act. On a previous date, the Court noted an order in a similar case, M/s Sky Texpros Private Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which allowed appeals even with nil demand, and directed the petitioner to obtain instructions and file an affidavit if not permitted to file an appeal. Today, the petitioner stated they wish to file an appeal, which was not opposed by the State.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner expressed a desire to file an appeal against the order dated October 29, 2025. The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not oppose this prayer. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal. The Court further directed that if such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, it may be entertained on its merits without any objection being raised regarding limitation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original order or the GST provisions beyond the procedural aspect of filing an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal against the order dated October 29, 2025, under Section 107 of the GST Act, despite potential issues with electronic filing or demand recording? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to file an appeal against the impugned order. They relied on the principle established in M/s Sky Texpros Private Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026:AHC:189230-DB, which allowed appeals even where electronic records showed nil demand, suggesting a procedural accommodation for filing appeals. The petitioner stated their intention to file an appeal. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner to file an appeal.