M/S Shri Ram Roadlines vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Held
The Court sustained the preliminary objection raised by the revenue, holding that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the Court provided a conditional relief. The petitioner was granted permission to file their appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal on its own merit without raising any objection as to limitation. Any amount already deposited or recovered against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court explicitly declined interference in the writ proceedings on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Shri Ram Roadlines, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of knowledge of the adjudication order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum period for condoning delay had expired. The disputed amount is not explicitly stated.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under the UP GST Act, 2017, as per Section 107? The petitioner argued that they were prevented from filing an appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the adjudication order and that the delay condonation period had expired, rendering the statutory remedy unavailable. The revenue contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4149 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the revenue.
Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 for F.Y. 2021-22. 3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that owing to lack of knowledge of the adjudication order dated 15.12.2025 petitioner could not avail its statutory remedy of appeal, within limitation. At present, the petitioner is disabled from filing appeal as the maximum period for which delay may be condoned, has expired.
In view of the above, the preliminary objection is sustained. Though interference claimed in the writ proceeding is declined, in the interest of justice, it is provided, subject to the petitioner filing its appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the same may be entertained on its own Vers
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.