M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner Appeals
Facts
M/s Shreekanth Enterprises, a taxable person registered under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, GST Haldwani. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits of the case. The petitioner stated that they had deposited the entire tax amount and were willing to pay any applicable penalty and interest. The Standing Counsel for the State conceded that permitting the petitioner to make a representation would be just and proper given the petitioner's willingness to pay the dues.
Held
The Court held that it would be just and proper to permit the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority by making a representation, given that the petitioner had paid the tax amount and was ready to pay interest and penalty. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2 (Joint Commissioner, State Tax, GST Haldwani) within two weeks. Respondent no.2 was directed to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order as per law within ten weeks thereafter. Until a decision was taken on the representation, or for a period of three months, whichever was earlier, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. The issue of whether the appeal should have been considered on merits despite the delay was not directly decided, but the Court facilitated a path for the petitioner to have their case considered.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits of the case, under the Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that since the entire tax amount had been deposited and they were prepared to pay any penalty and interest, they should be permitted to make a representation to the Competent Authority. The Revenue (State) conceded that given the petitioner's willingness to pay the tax, interest, and penalty, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority with a representation.
Sections Cited
Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
UKHC010163422026
2026:UHC:9362-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMB/769/2026 M/s Shreekanth Enterprises --Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner Appeals and Another --Respondents
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State through V.C.
Petitioner is a taxable person registered under Uttarakhand GST Act, 2017. He has challenged the order dated 11.05.2026, passed by Appellate Authority / Joint Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals), GST Haldwani, in this writ petition.
Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 reveals that appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay, and merits of the case were not considered.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner has deposited the entire amount of tax and he is ready to pay the penalty and interest, therefore, petitioner be permi
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.