M/S SRI MAHAKALESWAR JI ENTERPRISES THRU. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ANOOP KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT) v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX DIVISION 2 LAKHIMPUR KHERI U.P.
WTAX/299/2025 · 2025-04-16
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 132254 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 132254 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21249-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 299 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Sri Mahakaleswar Ji Enterprises Thru. Authorized Signatory Anoop Kumar (Accountant) Respondent :- The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Division 2 Lakhimpur Kheri U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar Mishra,Rishi Raj Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging an order of penalty passed under Section 73. Apart from the fact, that the said order is appealable, we find that the ground taken by the petitioner is not tenable in the facts of the case. The contention is that there is no compliance of Section 75(4) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. In this regard, he says that while uploading his reply, he attempted to opt for personal hearing by ticking the block corresponding to "Yes". However, due to a technical glitch, automatically, the block corresponding to the word "No" got ticked. This happened on 20.05.2024. We asked learned Counsel for the petitioner as to when subsequent to the aforesaid technical glitch having taken place, the petitioner informed the concerned jurisdictional officer in writing, he could not give any reply. Moreover, we find that the
order impugned is of the date 29.08.2024. We are now in April,
2025. The petitioner has not raised any such objection since passing of the said order, and has filed this petitioner after almost 7-8 months. From the facts before us, we cannot draw any such inference that a technical glitch had taken place, as, had it taken place, then the petitioner would have immediately protested or informed the proper officer in writing by post or in person. There is no such averment in the writ petition. Therefore, purely on facts, we do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.4.2025/Lokesh Kumar [Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench