M/S Malti Lawns vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Central Excise, Division-1, Gorakhpur
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Malti Lawns, challenged an Order in Original dated March 26, 2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Division-1, Gorakhpur. This order was issued under Sections 74, 122, and 125 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, pertaining to the financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order was appealable. The petitioner contended that the period of limitation for filing an appeal had expired. The Court noted that the delay was explained and not inordinate.
Held
The Court held that while a statutory remedy of appeal was available, the writ petition could be entertained if the delay in filing the appeal was explained. The Court found that the delay had been explained and was not inordinate or unexplained. Therefore, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a specified period. The revenue was directed not to raise any objection as to the limitation for the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the original order itself, but rather facilitated the petitioner's access to the appellate forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, as per the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the explanation for the delay? The petitioner argued that the statutory remedy of appeal was rendered ineffective due to the expiry of the limitation period. The revenue contended that the impugned order was appealable and raised a formal objection regarding the delay, though they did not seriously object to the petitioner filing an appeal within a limited timeframe if permitted by the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 122, Section 125
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4001 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record.
Challenge has been raised to Order in Original dated 26.3.2026 passed by respondent under Sections 74, 122 and 125 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for the Financial Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue has raised a preliminary objection that the order impugned is appealable.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the period of limitation has expired.
Keeping in mind the fact that there is no inordinate and unexplained delay, at present, delay has been explained.
In face of statutory remedy of appeal being available, no occasion may exist to entertain the present writ petition.
On query made, if the revenue would have any serious objection on the delay aspect if the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within limited time frame, learned counsel for revenue has raised formal objecti
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.