M/S Radhey Mobile vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court sustained the preliminary objection raised by the revenue, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the Court provided a conditional relief. It directed that if the petitioner files its appeal within two weeks from the date of the order, the same shall be entertained on its own merit without any objection as to limitation. Furthermore, any amount already deposited or recovered against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court explicitly declined to interfere in the writ proceedings on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Radhey Mobile, filed a writ petition challenging an adjudication order dated 30.08.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2019-20. 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, disabling them from filing an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under the UP GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal beyond the period of limitation, considering the circumstances presented? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order and consequently missed the statutory appeal deadline. They claimed to be disabled from filing an appeal due to the expiry of the maximum period for condoning delay. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4146 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 30.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017 for F.Y. 2019-20. 3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has a 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 30.08.2024 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 Ve
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.