M/S Axis Bank Ltd. Having Regional Office Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mrs. Anmeet Kaur v. the Commissioner Commercial Taxes Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2026STRE/3/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court admitted a revision challenging the rejection of an appeal for failure to produce Form F and stayed recovery proceedings pending consideration on specified questions of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Axis Bank Ltd. Having Regional Office Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mrs. Anmeet Kaur vs the Commissioner Commercial Taxes Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 3 of 2026

¶3

M/S Axis Bank Ltd. Having Regional Office Lucknow Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mrs. Anmeet Kaur

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Commissioner Commercial Taxes Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Tushar Mittal, Ritika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 19

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Tushar Mittal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vikram Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

By means of the present revision filed under Section 58 of U.P. VAT Act, 2008, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal No.15 of 2024 (Axis Bank Ltd., vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow) under Section 57 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 for Assessment Year 2016-17 whereby the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 7.10.2023 passed in First Appeal No.92 of 2020 of the Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The learned Appellate Authority declined to entertain the appeal and rejected the same mainly on the ground that the present revisionist could not produce the Form-F neither in appeal nor before the concerned authority.

¶12

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that for the Assessment Year 2013-14 to Assessment Year 2016-17, there is an ongoing dispute between the applicant and the DVAT Authorities. While the issue is subjudice before the Special Commissioner, the DVAT Authorities have blocked the issuance of

¶13

STRE No. 3 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Form F, which is the subject matter of present revision.

¶16

The instant revision is admitted on the following questions of law:

¶17

(a). Whereby the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding the order of the First Appellate Authority by not granting additional time to produce pending Form-F in the light of the provisions of Rule 12 (7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turn Over) Rules and Section 8 (4) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which provides the Assessing Authority with explicit power to grant additional time to produce Form F ?

¶18

(b). Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding the order of First Appellate Authority and the respondent while it is a settled position in law that the Declaratory Form under Central Sales Tax could be submitted at a later stage ?

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist in Paragraph No.42 of the revision that the revisionist has deposited a sum of Rs.38,54,065/- for seeking stay before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow and the same is still lying deposited.

¶20