HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5432 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 Mishra learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the Adjudication Order dated 10.6.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017. 3. Submissions are, the respondents have not provided the video recording and the authorisation letter for search. Also, opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not granted. Further errors have been claimed in the Adjudication Order to the extent the Adjudicating Authority has not made correct appraisal of the evidence led before it and has failed to consider the fact that the witness of Panchnama have not been examined. Last, it has been submitted that for the same transaction, the petitioner has been penalised under Section 130 of the Act. Second penalty could not have been imposed for the same transaction by means of the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend that the order impugned is appealable. He would contend, fact disputes are involved. Submissions advanced by the petitioner- to be entitled to a copy of the video recording, authorisation letter etc. and its grievance with respect to non-examination/cross-examination of witnesses would also require fact aspects to be considered before any conclusion may be drawn. The ground of double penalty imposed may also be tested in appeal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ashish Bansal, Ayush Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Paliwal Traders .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it is undeniable that the order impugned is appealable. Equally it appears to us, fact issues are involved as would require appraisal of evidence and consideration of fact submissions before any firm conclusion/s may be drawn with respect to the grounds of challenge being pressed, some of which have been noted above. 6. In face of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All grounds of challenge as have been raised and as may be advised to the petitioner may be raised in statutory appeal proceedings. 7. In view of the above, the period of limitation having just expired, we provide that subject to the petitioner filing its appeal on or before 31.10.2025, same may be entertained and decided on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation. 8. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. October 15, 2025 Faraz WTAX No. 5432 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad