The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication of an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the revenue must prove with cogent evidence that such an assertion is incorrect.
The appellate authority must furnish an independent finding on the date of communication of the order.
Justice Piyush Agrawal referenced the decisions of the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in the cases of Bambino Agro Industries Limited v. State of U.P. and Associate Molasses Transport Company v. State of U.P. & Another.
“The Revenue has utterly failed in the impugned orders to note the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Limited (supra), which has been followed by this Court in the case of M/s Associate Molasses Transport Company (supra). The Revenue has to endeavor to rebut the submissions made by the respective dealers with regard to actual date of communication by bringing on record cogent materials. Once the Revenue has utterly failed to rebut the submissions made by the respective parties, the impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law.”
Read Also: Allahabad HC: Penalty Invalid if Not Specified in GST DRC-01 Notice
Before the High Court, a batch of writ petitions was filed contesting the appellate orders under the Uttar Pradesh GST law that dismissed the appeals of the taxpayer based on the delay and laches, without analysing the merits.
The Court, referring to the judgment in Bambino Agro Industries Limited, said that:
“Once the Division Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that the date of communication as mentioned by the respective dealers shall be treated as the actual date of communication, then the onus shifts on the Revenue to rebut by cogent materials. In the absence thereof, the date of communication as declared by the dealer shall be treated as the date of actual communication and the limitation shall arise from such date.”
The Division Bench in the Associate Molasses Transport Company had remitted the case to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the limitation in light of Bambino Agro Industries Limited.
The Court, while considering that the decisions were binding, stated that,
“The appellate authority was bound to give its own independent finding while passing the impugned orders, but the appellate authority has utterly failed to follow the directions in the above-noted judgements and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”
Important: How GST Software Fixes Common Mistakes in SCN Replies
Subsequently, the High Court quashed the impugned appellate orders and remitted the case to the respective appellate authorities to pass fresh orders within 2 months, taking into account the norms specified in Bambino Agro Industries Limited and M/s Associate Molasses Transport Company.
For Petitioners: Advocate Deepanshu Sharma (in Writ Tax No. 2173/2026); Advocate Faizan Ahmad (in Writ Tax No. 1953/2026); Advocate Sharda Prasad Mishra (in Writ Tax No. 2188/2026); Advocate Suyash Agarwal.
For Respondents: Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Ravi Shankar Pandey.
| Case Title | Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Sai Traders vs The State of Uttar Pradesh |
| Case No. | WRIT TAX No. – 2173 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Deepanshu Sharma |
| For Respondent | C.S.C. |
| Allahabad High Court | Read Order |
