Star International Exims Thru. Proprietor Nisha Devi vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and Another

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, who has filed his Memo of Appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2, which is taken on record.

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 17.10.2025, passed by the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (in short, 'CESTAT Allahabad'), whereby an application seeking condonation of delay, which was filed along with the appeal, has been rejected.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two appeals were filed before the CESTAT Allahabad, one by the petitioner and the other by her husband, namely, Hira Singh. The appeal of the petitioner was bearing Appeal Diary No.70154 of 2025 whereas the appeal of the husband of the petitioner was bearing Appeal Diary No.70103 of 2025. In both the appeals, the cause shown for condonation of delay was identical as it arose out of the same circumstances. Both the appeals were listed before the CESTAT Allahabad on the same day, however, the respondents have passed contradictory orders in the two appeals, that is to say, that in the appeal of the husband of the petitioner, the same cause was found sufficient and the delay was condoned whereas the same cause did not find favour in the case of the petitioner, consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

¶14

WTAX No. 46 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 17.10.2025, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.6 to buttress the aforesaid submission. It is, thus, urged that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned rejecting the application for condonation of delay of the petitioner was not appropriate, rather it is arbitrary.

¶17

Shri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 though opposed the aforesaid submission, however, could not dispute the fact that the cause shown, which was identical by both the petitioner and her husband, yet the same cause has been found sufficient to condone the delay in the appeal of the husband, whereas, the same cause did not find favour insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submissions and the material brought on record, the apparent inconsistency as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law. Once, the cause shown by the husband was found sufficient in his appeal, which was identical with the cause shown by the petitioner, fairness and ends of justice demand that the delay in both the appeals ought to have been condoned.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 rejecting the condonation of delay cannot be maintained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal shall stand restored on the board of the CESTAT Allahabad, who after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall consider the same on merit and decide the appeal.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed .

¶21

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶22

January 14, 2026

¶23

Rakesh/-

¶24

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

Star International Exims Thru. Proprietor Nisha Devi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Star International Exims Thru. Proprietor Nisha Devi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways Authority of India Thru. Project Director vs Vineet Kumar Singh and Another

C/M Society Shri Krishna Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddyalaya Thru. Managar Smt.Sanyogita and Another vs Assistant Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits,Prayagraj and Another

M/S Lucknow Hardware and Plywood Thru. Proprietor Arshad Muzeeb vs Additional Commissioner Grade II Appeals State Tax Judicial Division Iii,Lucknow and Another

M/S Swaranam Power Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Shivank Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax Registration and 2 Others

Wadood Ahmad Vs Addl. District Judge/Ftc Pratapgarh and 2 Others

C/M Society Shri Krishna Uchchatar Madhyamik Viddyalaya Thru. Managar Smt.Sanyogita and Another vs Assistant Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits,Prayagraj and Another