HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2805 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Yashonidhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the UPGST Act, 2017. 3. On the issue of laches, it has been submitted that the petitioner got to know of the order in March 2025 when recovery proceedings were initiated. The present petition was filed in the month of May 2025. It has remained pending for more than four months. 4. In such circumstances, a preliminary objection has been raised by the revenue that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. Merely because the petitioner did not pursue that remedy within time, the present petition may not be entertained as it may create a device to dealers to avoid their statutory obligation, which entail minimal deposits to be made to maintain such proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously urge that the impugned order is fundamentally defective to the extent it does not offer any reason. Moreover since it was not communicated to the petitioner within time, the issue of delay may not be relevant. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ashish Beej Bhandar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, factual issue and disputes involved, whether the order is reasoned enough as required in law, is an issue that may be gone into more extensively by the Appeal Authority. Hence interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. 7. On the issue of statutory remedy of appeal and limitation thereto, prima facie it does appear that the order impugned may have been first communicated to the petitioner in the month of March 2025. Computed therefrom the present petition was filed within limitation to file the appeal, which has remained pending for almost more than four months. That may not disentitle the petitioner to file and pursue his appeal remedy, if such remedy is availed within a period of two weeks from today. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction, subject to the petitioner filing a proper appeal on or before 17.10.2025, the same may be entertained on its own merit without raising any objection as to limitation. October 6, 2025 Abhilash WTAX No. 2805 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad