Priya Medical Stores Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered a writ petition challenging the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-VI, State Tax, Kanpur, which rejected the petitioner’s delay condonation application and the appeal itself.
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 26, Kanpur had issued a show-cause notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 73(1) concerning the financial year 2018-19, after noticing a discrepancy between Form 26-AS and the GSTIN report. The petitioner stated that it was not aware of the proceedings, following which an order under Section 73 was passed on 27.04.2024.
The petitioner initially challenged the adjudication order through Writ Tax No. 417 of 2026. On 21.01.2026, the High Court declined interference after noting that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, leaving that remedy open. The order referred to the Court’s earlier decisions in M/S Shree Shakti Infra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. and M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-VI, along with grounds seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner explained that it came to know from GST department sources on 11.01.2026 about the determination of tax liability dated 27.04.2024. It stated that it immediately consulted an advocate, filed the earlier writ petition on 14.01.2026, and, after the High Court directed it towards the statutory appellate remedy, consulted another advocate at Kanpur on 19.02.2026 and proceeded to prepare and file the appeal without further delay.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 17.04.2026, referring to the limitation period and stating that a delay beyond the permissible additional period could not be condoned. The order also referred to Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, reported in 2008(3) SCC 70, and the Full Bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax I; Commissioner of Income Tax Central; Janpad Thok Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited Vs. Mohd. Farooq; New Cawnpore Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd; Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2009(317) ITR 305.
Before the High Court, the petitioner confined the challenge to the appellate order. It was submitted that once grounds for condonation of delay had been specifically taken, the appellate authority was required to consider those grounds instead of simply rejecting them. The petitioner also expressed willingness to comply with conditions, including payment of costs.
The State counsel submitted that the grounds stated in the appeal were not worthy of consideration. However, when the Court specifically asked whether those grounds had actually been considered by the appellate authority, the answer was in the negative.
The High Court examined the grounds stated for the delay alongside the appellate order and found that none of the grounds had been considered. The Court observed that the order appeared to have been passed in a “cyclostyle manner.” Since an appeal is a statutory right and the grounds seeking condonation of delay had not been considered, the Court held that the appellate order could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated 17.04.2026, subject to payment of Rs.5,000 as costs. The delay condonation application filed with the appeal was restored to its original number. The appellate authority was directed to decide the delay condonation application within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the High Court’s order. The respondent-State was held entitled to the Rs.5,000 cost.
The writ petition was consequently partly allowed on 24 July 2026.
Cases Discussed
- M/S Shree Shakti Infra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Allahabad High Court), 2026:AHC:277-DB
- M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Allahabad High Court), 2025:AHC:229995-DB
- Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, 2008(3) SCC 70
- Commissioner of Income Tax I; Commissioner of Income Tax Central; Janpad Thok Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited Vs. Mohd. Farooq; New Cawnpore Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd; Commissioner of Income Tax, 2009(317) ITR 305
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they are well conversant with the instructions and they are in a position to argue the matter and they do not propose to file any affidavit.
3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the first stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that it happens to be a registered dealer under UPGST/ CGST Act, 2017 having a valid GSTIN No. 09AFJPG1884Q1ZP. The respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 26, Kanpur noticing the discrepancy found in Form 26-AS as compared to GSTIN report issued a show cause noticed dated 31.01.2024 referable to the fmancial year 2018-19 under Section 73 (1) of the Act while imposing tax interest in penalty. Since the writ petitioner was not aware about the said proceedings, however, the respondent no. 2 proceeded to pass the order dated 27.04.2024. The petitioner questioned the said order while filing Writ Tax No. 417 of 2026, in which on 21.01.2026, the following orders were passed:
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Challenge has been raised to the ex parte Adjudication Order dated 27.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.
3. Preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal.
4. On the issue of limitation, we have passed order dated 05.01.2026 in M/S Shree Shakti Infra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2026:AHC:277-DB, following another order passed by us in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025:AHC:229995-DB.
5. In view of the above, it appears, the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal available to it. Leaving that course open, interference claimed is declined.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of”
5. Thereafter the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-VI State Tax, Kanpur seeking the ground of delay. However, the said appeal came to be rejected by the 3rd respondent by virtue of the order dated 17.04.2026.
6. Questioning both the orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that as per the instructions received from the client, she confines her challenge to the appellate order. Submission is that once grounds are taken for condonation of the delay while preferring the appeal, then the said grounds ought to have been considered but the same cannot be overlooked or brushed aside on the premise that the same is not acceptable to the adjudicating authority who is to decide the appeal. Submission is that it was not open for the appellate authority to ignore the grounds as there were genuine grounds which needed consideration at the end of the appellate authority which has not been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner as per the instruction from the client submits that the petitioner is also agreeable for the conditions which the Court may accord including deposit of the cost.
8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the grounds so taken in the memo of appeal are not worth consideration. However, on a pointed query being raised to him whether the said grounds were considered or not, the answer is in negative.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Plainly and simply, order under Section 73 of the Act came to be passed on 27.04.2024 against which an appeal came to be preferred along with the grounds for delay which has been rejected on 17.04.2026. The grounds taken in the appeal for condonation of delay is being quoted hereinunder:
“4. That as per posting in GSTN portal the date is 27-04-2024. Accordingly the Appeal is due to be filed upto 26-07-2024. But Appeal could not be filed in due time. The delay caused in filing impugned Appeal due to following reasons:-
i. As soon as the deponent came to know on 11-01-2026 from the GST department sources for determination of tax liability under Section 73 dated 27-04-2024, immediately consulted an Advocate for seeking legal remedies. Advocate advised to contact Advocate Pooja Talwar of High Court for filing Writ Petition before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow.
ii. The deponent consulted Smt. PoojaTalwar Advocate High Court for seeking remedies and filing Writ Petition. The Writ Petition drafted, compiled, prepared and filed on 14-01-2026. The Writ Petition is registered vide Writ Tax No. 417 of 2026. Hon’ble High Court made an Order that petitioner has statutory remedy of Appeal availability, interference claimed is denied.
iii. From impugned Order the deponent consulted ShriSantosh Kumar Gupta, Advocate at Kanpur for further filing of Appeal before Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-6, State Tax, Kanpur on 19-02-2026.
iv. Appeal drafted and prepared, Court Fee deposited and without any further delay Appeal is being filed before your honour.”
11. However, the appellate order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent reads as under:
Clearly, no application for condonation of delay may have been entertained by the appellate authority beyond a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of normal period of limitation (three months).
In the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008(3) SCC 70 paragraph no. 8 as also the Full Bench decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax I; Commissioner of Income Tax Central; Janpad Thok Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Limited Vs. Mohd. Farooq; New Cawnpore Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd; Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2009(317) ITR 305, the delay condonation application filed beyond the period of thirty days could not be condoned and it was clearly not maintainable by the appellate authority. Consequently, there is no error in the order of the Appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held- There is no power conferred on any authority under the Act to dilute the mandatory requirement under Section 19(11). The Taxing Statute has to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be read in nothing is to be implied and language used in taxing statute had to be looked into fairly. The benefits envisaged in the taxing statute had to be extended as per restrictions and conditions envisaged there in. The statute having not given any indication for extension of time which is a condition for claiming Input Tax Credit, The submission that period could have been extended by assessing authority is unfounded and cannot be accepted.
12. A conjoint reading of the grounds of the delay in preferring the appeal and the order of the appellate authority will show that none of the grounds have been considered and the order appears to have been passed in a cyclostyle manner.
13. Accordingly, bearing in mind that an appeal is a statutory right and grounds were taken in delay for condonation which has not been considered, thus, the appellate order cannot be sustained.
14. Accordingly, the petition is being decided in the following manner:
a. The order dated 17.04.2026 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-VI, State Tax, Kanpur rejecting the delay condonation application in preferring the appeal and also the appeal itself is set asdie subject to payment of Rs. 5000 as cost.
b. The delay condonation application accompanied with the appeal stands restored to its original number.
c. The appellate authority shall decide the delay condonation application within a period of 2 months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order.
d. The respondent-State shall be entitled to the cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
15. Accordingly, the petition stands partly allowed. July 24, 2026
