M/S Vap International Private Limited Thru.Manager Mr.Kuldeep Mishra vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 144 of 2026

¶3

M/S Vap International Private Limited Thru.Manager Mr.Kuldeep Mishra

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Finance New Delhi And 3 Others

¶7

Ministry Finance New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Komal Prasad Tiwari, Malik Faiyaz Ahmed Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶11

Sri Atul Kumar Singh learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 which is taken on record.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal) Judicial Division-I, SGST, Ayodhya i.e respondent no.3 whereby the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been affirmed.

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents at the outset has submitted that the petitioner has adequate statutory remedy for filing a second appeal before the Tribunal. It has also been pointed out that earlier the writ petitions were being entertained as the Tribunal was not functioning. However, the Tribunal has now been properly constituted and in so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, in terms of the Notification dated 17th September, 2025 all appeals before the Tribunal would be treated to be within time uptil 30th June, 2026. The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification is being reproduced herein below:-

¶14

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the

¶15

WTAX No. 144 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30th day of June, 2026, as the date upto which appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal before the 1 day of April, 2026 and all appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1 April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring the appeal."

¶18

It is, thus, urged that in view thereof the petitioner has the statutory remedy which can be availed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner though attempted to make submissions but could not dispute the fact that the Tribunal has been constituted and in terms of the notification he has the limitation as well.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find it appropriate to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to file the second appeal before the Tribunal. In case such an appeal is filed before the Tribunal, the same shall be decided on its own merit. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the merits and the petition has been declined only on the ground of alternate remedy.

¶21

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶22

February 3, 2026

¶23

Harshita

¶24

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Vap International Private Limited Thru.Manager Mr.Kuldeep Mishra v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vap International Private Limited Thru.Manager Mr.Kuldeep Mishra v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zakir Mohammad Ikram Khan vs Arif Khan and Ors.

M/S Prince Autosales Thru.Partner Mr.Nawab Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Tax and Registration Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Ashfaq Ahmad Khan Thru. Proprietor Ashaphak Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko and 3 Others

SBI General Insurance Company Limited Thru. Manager Legal vs Sonu Kumar and 2 Others

M/S a.K.Srivastava Thru. Proprietor Adesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Guru Kripa Construction and Suppliers Work Thru. Prop. Mr Krishna Kumar Verma vs the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki