Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136450 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3791 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gyanish Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anay Kumar Srivastava,Samir Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order, the petitioner has equally, efficacious alternative remedy of filing revision under section 11 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said fact. In view of the above as well as the judgements of the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] (paragraph no. 43), Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others [(2021) 6 SCC 771] (paragraph nos. 27.3 and 27.5) and Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Others [(2023) 2 SCC 168] (paragraph no. 36), the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. However, it is provided that in case the revision is preferred within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection with regard to the limitation. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad