HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4499 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Challenge has been raised to the Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2. The order is clearly appealable. 3. On query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has referred the internal page 5 of the impugned order which clearly discloses that the copy of the impugned order was communicated to one 'M/s Kalpnath Sharma, Kathauli, Meja, Allahabad 212303'. Undeniably, that is not the address of the noticee against whom the Order-in-Original has been passed. That order has been passed in the case of "M/s Amar Bahadur Chaurasia Enterprises, Sahjipur, Tharwai Soraon, Allahabad 212302". That is the full description of the petitioner. Since the impugned order has been served on a completely different entity, clearly the period of limitation prescribed never started running from the date of the impugned order or the date of service of that order on M/s Kalpnath Sharma to whom that order was dispatched. 4. In view of such facts, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit, at this stage. In the first phase, the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Dwivedi, Vishwas Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, Dhananjay Awasthi, Ravi Ranjan, Saumitra Singh M/S Chaurasia Enterprises .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) impugned order. Secondly, that opportunity has been completely denied to the petitioner owing to clerical mistake on part of the office of respondent no. 2 who dispatched the impugned order to a completely different entity. Unless the impugned order had been served on the petitioner, the period of limitation to file an appeal may not have been started running. 5. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with directions that the petitioner may apply for certified copy of the impugned order within 15 days. Subject to such compliance being made, certified copy may be issued to the petitioner within a period of two weeks therefrom. The petitioner shall have one month from the date of issuance of the certified copy of the order to file his appeal before the appeal authority. 6. Subject to due compliance being made by the petitioner, the petitioner's appeal thus filed may be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. October 8, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 4499 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad