M/S Bakshi Timber vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bakshi Timber, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.10.2022, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. This order pertained to the tax period of October 2020 to March 2021. The petition also challenged the consequential Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.10.2022 and the recovery proceedings initiated based on these documents. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to a violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. The Court noted that the order was passed almost four years prior to the writ petition and that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired long ago.
Held
The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the significant delay in filing the petition. The Court observed that the impugned order was passed almost four years prior to the filing of the writ petition and that there was no reasonable explanation provided for this delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired long ago. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to examine the validity of the order at that stage. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an order under GST law will not be entertained when there has been an inordinate delay and the statutory remedy of appeal has lapsed without sufficient cause.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.10.2022, passed by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of Section 75(4) of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to a violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/UKGST Act, 2017. No specific precedents or circulars were mentioned in the judgment for this argument. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the State-respondents regarding the violation of Section 75(4). However, the Court's observation regarding the delay and expired limitation period implicitly addresses the maintainability of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 75(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures UKHC010169362026
2026:UHC:8631-DB
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
2026
WPMB No. 807 of 2026 M/s Bakshi Timber
.....Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others
....Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Faizul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.10.2022, passed by respondent no.3 under Section 74 of the CGST/ UKGST Act, 2017 for the period October 2020 to March 2021; the consequential Form GST DRC-07, dated 20.10.2022, and; the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside as there was violation of Section 75(4) of the Act.
As the order was passed almost four years back and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, we are not inclined to exam
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 Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.