M/S Super Dairy vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that it would decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the extent that the impugned order is clearly appealable. However, considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction. The direction stipulated that if the petitioner files its appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, the same may be entertained on its own merits, without any objection being raised by the State on the ground of limitation. The Court did not decide the merits of the cancellation of registration itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Super Dairy, challenged an order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the respondent authorities, which cancelled its registration under the UP GST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Standing Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Standing Counsel further stated that if the petitioner filed an appeal within two weeks from the date of the hearing, the State would not object on the grounds of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order? The petitioner's contention was not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The respondent's contention, as presented by the Standing Counsel, was that a statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy against the order cancelling registration and that the Court should not interfere under its writ jurisdiction. The respondent also indicated a willingness to waive the limitation period for filing such an appeal.