Allahabad High Court
M/S SHIKHAR PRINT-N-PACKSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- Decided
- Bench
- PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy under the GST Appellate Tribunal is available.
Summary
M/S Shikhar Print‑N‑Packs filed a writ petition challenging an order of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State, through its standing counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the Central Government had already constituted the GST Appellate Tribunal and, under Section 111 of the GST Act, issued rules governing its procedure, thereby providing an efficacious alternative remedy. The petitioner did not dispute the existence of the Tribunal. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu), the Court held that the presence of an alternative remedy bars the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability.
Issues considered
- The writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act — s. 111
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- GST Appellate Tribunal
- maintainability
- Section 111
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 2163 of 2026
M/S Shikhar Print-N-Packs
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepanshu Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned Standing Counsel for the
State - respondents.
2. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection with
regard to maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that now, the Central
Government, vide order dated 24.09.2025, has constituted the GST Appellate Tribunal
and its Members have also been appointed vide Office Order No. 03/2025 dated
26.12.2025 with a request to join their respective Benches by 21.01.2026.
3. He further submits that the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred
under section 111 of the GST Act, issued notification dated 24.04.2025 making rules
for regulating the procedure and functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal and
therefore, against the impugned order, the petitioner has equally, efficacious
alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said fact.
5. 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.
April 20, 2026
Rahul Dwivedi/-
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…