Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76266-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2136 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Ratnadeep Fashions Respondent :- Commissioner of State Tax, U.P. Lucknow and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aloke Kumar,Puneet Arun Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwakm S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.02.2025, Annexure -1 to the writ petition, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 ('Act') inter-alia raising a demand to the tune of Rs.76,274.45. 2. Submission has been made that when the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 23.09.2022 with effect from 31.07.2022, the demand as on that date was indicated as 'NIL'. Whereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 73 of the Act on 25.11.2024 for the Financial Year 2020 - 2021 raising a demand of Rs.1,23,247.15. Whereafter, reminder dated 15.01.2025 was issued and a reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioner on 18.01.2025, wherein the petitioner deposited the requisite amount of tax through DRC-03. The petitioner also deposited interest to the tune of Rs.2000/-. 3. Submission has been made that once pursuant to the notice the petitioner, had deposited the requisite amount and interest, passing of the order under Section 73 of the Act, demanding further interest and imposing penalty is not justified. 4. Submission has also been made seeking to question the issuance of notice after cancellation and holding that no amount was due and it has been prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel defended the order impugned. Submission has been made that merely because at the time of cancellation no demand was shown as outstanding cannot act as estoppel against the respondent in raising the demand. 6. Submission has also been made that admittedly the petitioner has accepted the outstanding demand and once the outstanding demand has been accepted and deposited, the payment of interest and penalty are automatic and no fault can be found in the order impugned. 7. Further submission has been made that the order impugned is open to challenge under Section 107 of the Act and filing of the writ petition bypassing the remedy of appeal without indicating any reason, the petition deserves dismissal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner qua tax in view of the fact that the petitioner had admitted the demand of tax and deposited the same, cannot be countenanced. 10. So far as the demand of interest and penalty are concerned, the plea raised, can very well be raised by way of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, as rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondent, no reason has been indicated in the petition seeking to bypass the remedy. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad