Allahabad High Court
M/S MALTI LAWNSversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, DIVISION-1, GORAKHPUR
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed pending the filing of a statutory appeal within two weeks.
Summary
M/S Malti Lawns challenged an order dated 26‑03‑2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, invoking Sections 74, 122 and 125 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for the financial years 2019‑20 to 2021‑22. The petitioner argued that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, while the revenue contended that the order was appealable. The Court observed that there was no inordinate or unexplained delay and that a statutory remedy of appeal was available. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained unless the petitioner filed a proper appeal within two weeks. The petition was therefore disposed of, with a direction to file the appeal within the stipulated period, after which the merits may be considered.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the alleged limitation period having expired
- Whether the petitioner must first avail the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the High Court
Legislation cited
- CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — s. 122, 125, 74
Subjects
- CGST
- UPGST
- limitation period
- statutory appeal
- writ petition
- tax assessment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 4001 of 2026
M/S Malti Lawns
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax
& Central Excise, Division-1, Gorakhpur
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Pandey, Himanshu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra
Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record.
2. Challenge has been raised to Order in Original dated 26.3.2026 passed by
respondent under Sections 74, 122 and 125 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for the
Financial Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue has raised a preliminary objection that
the order impugned is appealable.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the period
of limitation has expired.
5. Keeping in mind the fact that there is no inordinate and unexplained delay, at
present, delay has been explained.
6. In face of statutory remedy of appeal being available, no occasion may exist to
entertain the present writ petition.
7. On query made, if the revenue would have any serious objection on the delay aspect
if the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal within limited time frame, learned
counsel for revenue has raised formal objection.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation, subject to
petitioner filing statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the same
may be entertained on merits, without raising any objection as to the limitation.
September 30, 2026
Prakhar
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…