Writ petition allowed quashing an appellate order rejecting a GST appeal due to delay. Court held delay caused by revenue's failure to serve order and form was condonable, remitting matter for fresh decision.
Impugned order dated 31.08.2024 quashed; delay condoned; matter remitted to appellate authority for fresh decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13625
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 163 of 2025
Petitioner :- Mohammad Ishak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Kachhwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Kachhwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner contend that by the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), the appeal of the petitioner has been declined on the ground of delay.
It is contended by Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Kachhwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order in original passed by the assessing authority dated 19.08.2023 was never served upon the petitioner by post and not uploaded on the GST portal of the petitioner on the aforesaid date. The said order was not accompanied with the Form GST DRC-07 on 19.08.2023. The said order was uploaded on the GST portal on 18.01.2024.
Attention has been drawn to specific pleadings in this regard in the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-revenue does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has not refuted the pleadings on the basis of instructions.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is established that the date of service of the order in original passed by the assessing authority dated 19.08.2023 is not disclosed from the records of the State. The delay in filing of the appeal was occasioned by the fault of the revenue-authority and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same.
The declaration of the Form GST DRC-07 as contemplated in Rule 142(5) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 is a mandatory requirement of law. It is undisputed that the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 was not accompanied by the Form GST DRC-07. The latter form was uploaded only on 18.01.2023. The petitioner did not have knowledge of the impugned order and hence cannot be faulted for the delay in filing of the appeal.
The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 has rejected the appeal with a cryptic finding "delay in submission of the appeal". The order does not depict the application of mind and was passed in a mechanical fashion.
In this wake, the delay was liable to be condoned and is accordingly condoned.
The impugned order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.3-Additonal Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal) is liable to be quashed and is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for a fresh decision as per law on merits and after due application of mind.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent and the manner indicated above.
Order Date :- 27.1.2025
Ashish Tripathi
Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal caused by revenue's failure to serve the order and attach Form GST DRC-07 should be condoned.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the appeal on mechanical grounds of delay is valid.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Ishak
State Of U.P.
Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)
Additional Commissioner
District Officer
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
