M/S RAHUL CONSTRUCTION v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
WTAX/3983/2026 · 2026-09-28
Saumitra Dayal Singh, Swarupama Chaturvedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11241 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11241 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 3983 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ayush Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the ex-parte Adjudication Order dated 23.03.2026 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for Financial Year 2019-2020.
3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has available statutory remedy of appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that owing to lack of knowledge about the order dated 23.03.2026, the petitioner could not avail its statutory remedy of appeal, within limitation. At present the petitioner is disabled from filing appeal as the maximum period for which delay may be condoned, has expired.
5. By a separate order passed in Maa Gayatri Inter Prises vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2026:AHC:190551-DB), in similar circumstances, on a fair concession made by the State, to allow statutory appeals to be filed within a period of two weeks, that writ petition has been disposed of.
6. In view of similar concession made in the present facts, no further Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayush Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Rahul Construction .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
adjudication is required in the facts of this case. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation, subject to the petitioner availing statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the said appeal may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the stand of the State, noticed above.
7. Any amount that may have been deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make pre deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty etc. September 29, 2026 S.A.
WTAX No. 3983 of 2026 2 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad