HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5287 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Post nomination of the matter by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter is before this Court. 2. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. Sadhna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. A statement has been made by Ms. Sadhna Singh, learned Standing Counsel that she does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the second respondent, Additional Commissioner, Sector- 2 (Mobile Square-3), Gautam Budhnagar, U.P. under Section 20 of the UP Goods and Service Tax, 2017 and Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an appeal was preferred on 04.09.2024 before the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal). The said appeal came to be dismissed by a cyclostyle order on 25.09.2024 on the ground of delay. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order in question dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay cannot be sustained as not only the same is cyclostyle but it is foreign to the provisions of the Act. Argument is that once an appeal stood preferred along with the delay condonation application then it was imperative upon the appellate authority to assign reasons in coming to the conclusion that the delay is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Kumar Generator House .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) not to be condoned. The said exercise is lacking. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the appeal had been preferred with much delay which is not liable to be condoned, thus, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused. 7. I have heard the arguments of the rival parties and perused the record. 8. Apparently, against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the original authority, an appeal came to be preferred on 04.09.2024 before the appellate authority which came to be rejected on 25.09.2024 while passing the following orders.- "Delay in submission of appeal." 9. In the opinion of the Court at least something more was required to be recited and a cyclostyle order is not required to be passed particularly when a substantive legal right is being sought to be negated. At this juncture learned Standing Counsel submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order. 10. In view of the said fact, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The appellate order dated 25.09.2024 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the second respondent Section 20 of the UP Goods and Service Tax, 2017 read with Section 129 (3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is set aside; matter stands remitted back to the appellate court to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. For facilitation and early disposal, the writ petitioner to submit a self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order before the appellate authority by 07.11.2025. October 28, 2025 Rajesh WTAX No. 5287 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad