Allahabad High Court
M/S MAPLE LEAF INTELLIGENT SOLUTION PVTLTDversusUNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Holding
The court modified the 2nd and 7th paragraphs of the order, exempted the applicant from filing a certified copy, and stayed coercive action subject to deposit of 10% of the alleged demand within two weeks.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad entertained a review (actually a correction/modification) application filed by M/s Maple Leaf Intelligent Solution Pvt Ltd against an order dated 25‑03‑2026. The applicant sought clarification on the computation and deposit of a 10% amount and pointed out errors in the order, including an incorrect assessment year and jurisdictional issues concerning the use of IGST instead of CGST/SGST. The court examined the submissions, noted that Section 122 penalty provisions were inapplicable to the assessment years 2017‑18 and 2018‑19, and that the order was beyond jurisdiction. Consequently, paragraphs 2 and 7 of the impugned order were modified, and the applicant was exempted from filing a certified copy of the order. The court stayed any coercive action against the applicant provided it deposits the 10% amount within two weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 25‑03‑2026 requires clarification or modification regarding the computation and deposit of the 10% amount.
- Whether proceedings under Section 122 for levying penalty are valid for assessment years 2017‑18 and 2018‑19 given the provision came into force on 01‑01‑2021.
- Whether the order passed under IGST is within jurisdiction when notices were issued under CGST and SGST.
- Whether coercive action can be stayed pending the applicant’s deposit of the stipulated amount.
Subjects
- review application
- modification of order
- Section 122
- penalty
- CGST
- SGST
- IGST
- assessment year
- coercive action
- deposit
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 136 of 2026
M/S Maple Leaf Intelligent Solution Pvtltd
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 5 Other
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
(Civil Misc. Exemption Application)
The application is allowed.
The applicant is exempted from filing the certified copy of the order dated
25.3.2026.
(order passed in the review application)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi,
learned counsel for the opposite party.
By means of present review application, the applicant is seeking
clarification of the order dated 25.3.2026 to the extent that 10 % amount
is to be computed on the alleged liability and specify the forum where
such deposit is to be made.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 25.3.2026
needs some correction / modification but the nomenclature of the present
application is inadvertently changed as review application instead of
correction / modification application.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that by the order dated
25.3.2026, the applicant was directed to deposit the 10 % amount but
place, where such amount is to be deposited, has not been mentioned,
therefore, the order could not be complied with within time. Further in the
CMRAD No. 136 of 2026
2
2nd paragraph of the order, the assessment year 2017-18 has been shown
though the applicant has approached this Court for Assessment Years
2017-18 and 2018-19.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the
records.
In view of above, 2nd and 7th paragraph of the order dated 25.3.2026 is
modified to the following extent:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
proceedings under Section 122 for levying penalty have
been initiated against the petitioner without there being any
authority as the provision came into force on 01.01.2021
whereas the relevant assessment year are 2017-18 and
2018-19. At the relevant time, there was no such provision,
therefore, the proceedings have been initiated wrongly. She
further submits that that notices were issued under CGST
and SGST but surprisingly, the order was passed under
IGST which is beyond jurisdiction.
..
7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner provided that the petitioner
deposits 10% of the alleged outstanding amount of demand,
within two weeks from today before the assessing
authority."
The review/modification application is disposed of accordingly.
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Rahul Dwivedi/-
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…