Allahabad High Court
GULBAHAR ABDUL ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The order dated 09.04.2026 under Section 161 of the UPGST Act is set aside as a non‑speaking order, and the matter is remitted for a fresh adjudication on the rectification application.
Summary
Gulbahar Abdul Ali filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.04.2026 issued by the respondent under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order was deemed a non‑speaking order, merely reproducing facts and the statutory provision without reasoning, and it relied on Circular No. 518 dated 06.02.2025 issued by the State Tax Commissioner. The petitioner argued that an administrative circular cannot override the statutory power to rectify an order under Section 161, which must be exercised on the merits of each case. The Court held that the order failed to explain how the circular created a legal embargo on the adjudicating authority’s power and therefore could not stand. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass a fresh order on the rectification application within a month, after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 09.04.2026 under Section 161 of the UPGST Act is a valid exercise of the statutory power to rectify an order.
- Whether Circular No. 518 issued by the State Tax Commissioner can defeat or limit the legislative power conferred by Section 161 of the UPGST Act.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 161, 73(9)
Subjects
- Section 161
- rectification
- administrative circular
- non‑speaking order
- UPGST Act
- judicial review
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3688 of 2026
Gulbahar Abdul Ali
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akashi Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Having heard Sri Rahul Agrawal learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Akashi Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar
Mishra learned Standing Counsel for the State, at present the order
impugned dated 09.04.2026 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 161
of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a non
speaking order. Running into three pages, it records facts on the first two
pages. Thereafter it notes the provision of Section 161 of the Act, in extenso.
2. However, by way of reasoning, only this much has been recorded in the
said order:
"मननीय आयुक्त महोदय के परिपत्र-518 दिनांक 06.02.2025 में उल्लिखित
तथ्यों के आधार पर धारा-73(9) के अंतर्गत आदेश पारित किया गया है। इस प्रकार
आदेश में ऐसी कोई त्रुटि विद्यमान नहीं है जिसे धारा-161 के अन्तर्गत संशोधित
किया जा सके। अतः व्यापारी द्वारा दाखिल धारा-161 प्रार्थनापत्र अस्वीकार किया
जाता है।"
3. Neither the substance of Circular No. 518 dated 06.02.2025 has been
extracted in the said order nor it could be shown to us how that Circular
issued by the Commissioner State Tax created a legal embargo on the
powers of the Adjudicating Authority, to rectify its order. To the extent the
power to rectify is a statutory power, it had to be exercised on the own
merits of individual case. Therefore, an administrative Circular, may not
defeat the legislative effect of Section 161 of the Act. Rather, it may remain
subservient to legislation.
WTAX No. 3688 of 2026
2
4. In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the
petition pending or calling for Counter Affidavit or to relegate the petitioner
to the forum of alternative remedy. The basic flaw in the proceeding goes to
the root of the matter. It may not be cured at the appeal stage. Accordingly,
the order dated 09.04.2026 is set aside. Matter is remitted to respondent No.2
to pass afresh order on the petitioner's rectification application, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a month from today, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 29, 2026
Faraz
Digitally signed by :-
FARAZ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…