HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5558 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Referring to Section 2(91) of the UPGST Act, 2017 and the order dated 24th July, 2023 issued by the Commissioner State Tax, U.P. it has been submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice to the petitioner vested exclusively in the Deputy Commissioner for reason of his turn over exceeding Rs. 2.5 crores. The notice issued and proceedings concluded by the Assistant Commissioner an officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner, is without jurisdiction. Other grounds of violation of principle of natural justice etc. have also been pressed. 3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the jurisdiction exists as has been reasoned in the impugned order. In absence of any officer of higher rank being posted to Range-B, the notice was properly issued. Further objection has been raised that the petitioner has a right of appeal against the impugned order. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record to the extent it cannot be doubted that the grounds being pressed in this writ petition may remain available to the petitioner to be pressed in the statutory appeal proceedings and to the extent it may also be available to the petitioner to raise all other fact objections in such appeal proceedings, we are not inclined to offer any interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is a tax matter and fact Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ashish Bansal, Ayush Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Mahananda Business .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) issues being also involved it would be appropriate to relegate the present petitioner to the forum of alternative remedy. 5. Last, it has been observed that since the limitation to file an appeal may have expired during pendency of this writ petition. We therefore provide subject to the petitioner filing appeal within a period of two weeks that may be dealt with and decided on its own merits without raising any objection as to the limitation. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. October 27, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 5558 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad