M/S Jehovah Shalom Thru. Proprietor Siddharth James… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

M/S Jehovah Shalom Thru. Proprietor Siddharth James… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted on the writ petition; petitioner left open to file a second appeal before the Tribunal, which shall be decided on its own merit; merits were not examined by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the petitioner having an adequate statutory remedy of filing a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which has now been properly constituted. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court found it inappropriate to entertain the petition and dismissed it, leaving it open for the petitioner to file the second appeal before the Tribunal.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits and the petition was declined only on the ground of alternate remedy; any appeal filed before the Tribunal shall be decided on its own merit.

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that the Tribunal has been constituted and that, in terms of the Notification dated 17th September, 2025, the petitioner has limitation available as well; the petitioner's counsel could not dispute these facts.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Tax petition (WRIT TAX No. - 220 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J., decided 10.02.2026) by M/s Jehovah Shalom through its proprietor against the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 of the First Appellate authority (respondent no.3) affirming the adjudicating authority's order. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy of a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which has now been properly constituted, and that in terms of the Notification dated 17th September, 2025 (issued under sub-section (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) all appeals would be treated as within time up to 30th June, 2026. The petitioner's counsel could not dispute that the Tribunal stands constituted and limitation is available. The Court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of alternate remedy, expressly clarifying that it had not examined the merits, and left the petitioner free to file the second appeal before the Tribunal, to be decided on its own merit.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT TAX No. - 220 of 2026

M/S Jehovah Shalom Thru. Proprietor Siddharth James

.....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Tax And Registration U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, Anit Vishal Srivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

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

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the First Appellate authority i.e respondent no.3 whereby the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been affirmed.

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 uptill 30th June, 2026. The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification is being reproduced herein below:-

"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 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

WTAX No. 220 of 2026

2

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."

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

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.

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.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

February 10, 2026

Asheesh

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