HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 5389 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Mishra, learned counsel for revenue. 2. Submission is, penalty order was passed under Section 125 of the U.P.G.S.T Act suffers from jurisdictional error. In the event of non-filing of return, action may be taken under Section 62 of that Act. Therefore, no penalty may be imposed under Section 125. Reference has also been made to Section 126(Explanation-a). 3. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submits that the present is case of imposition of penalty. Section 62 of the Act does not provide for impost of penalty. Therefore, the general penalty provision under Section 125 is applicable. 4. All other issues that have been raised, including as to zero return having been filed, may remain to be decided in the appeal proceedings. 5. In short, preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it is a well recognized principle in tax jurisprudence where statutory remedies are available, those may not be easily waived and the writ jurisdiction may not be regularly invoked. 7. To the extent, plea of opportunity of hearing is not involved and to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Mishra, Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shivam Enterprises .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) extent no inherent lack of jurisdiction is pleaded, all the issues being raised may remain open to be contested in statutory appeal. At present, on a prima facie appraisal, we are not convinced that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction as Section 62 relates to procedure of assessemnt in case of persons who may not have filed their statutory returns while Section 125 relates to impost of penalty. 8. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail its statutory remedies, in accordance with law, inter reference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. For the reason this writ petition has remained pending for some time, it is provided, if petitioner avails such remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the appeal may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to delay. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. October 14, 2025 Nadeem WTAX No. 5389 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad