Dismissed

M/S Ibroad Connect Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025WTAX/308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order under Section 73 of the GST Act passed without considering the petitioner's response. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the stipulated time and offered no valid reason for the delay, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner left open to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

M/S Ibroad Connect Private Limited vs State of U.P… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15042-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 308 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- M/s Ibroad Connect Private Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vageesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶6

This petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 73 of the GST Act.

¶7

Submissions have been made that on issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his response to the show cause notice, however, without taking into consideration the plea raised in the response, the order impugned has been passed and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶8

Counsel for the respondents points out that the order was passed on 24.04.2024 and the petitioner had the remedy of filing appeal against the said order under Section 107 of the Act, however, the remedy was not availed and no reason has been indicated in the petition for approaching this Court after a passage of eight months since passing of the order impugned, i.e. after expiry of limitation/condonable period.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner attempted to make submissions that on account of family circumstances, the petitioner could not file appeal within time, however, perusal of the petition indicates nothing in this regard.

¶10

Admittedly, the petitioner was duly served with the order dated

¶11

24.04.2024 who chose not to question its validity in accordance

¶12

with law. Hence, filing of the petition after eight months, seeking to question the validity of the order after losing out on the limitation and not raising any issue pertaining to the jurisdiction of the authority in passing the order impugned and only raising issue of non-consideration of the reply as filed before the authority, cannot be countenanced. We, therefore, do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶13

The petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate course in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 AHA/Sandeep

¶15

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Ibroad Connect Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ibroad Connect Private Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhitanee Prasad and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

State Bank of India and 2 Others vs Shanti Devi and Another

Smt. Neelam Singh vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rashmi Asthana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mehul Garg vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aman Verma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others