Allahabad High Court
/1433/2025 of M/S PRIYANKA CONSTRUCTION THRU.PROPRIETOR ANOOP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TAX AND REGISTRATION GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER on 8 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1433 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT TAX No. - 1433 of 2025
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed by opp. party no.2, i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, Sector-20, Lucknow (C) Lucknow II : Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh as well as to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, Section-20, Lucknow (C) Lucknow II : State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 of writ petition.
b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opp. party no.2 stop the recovery proceeding against the petitioner."
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents has pointed out that the show cause notice is dated 31.01.2024 and the impugned order is dated 19.04.2024. It has been pointed out that the statutory remedy of filing an appeal is also available to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anit Vishal Srivastav, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Priyanka Construction Thru.Proprietor Anoop Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 114 of 2024, 'Eveready Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others'.
5. We have gone through the judgement rendered by this Court in Eveready Industries Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) The writ petition was filed sometimes in May, 2024, it was taken up as fresh on 03.05.2024, on which date, this Court noticed that the impugned order passed under Section 24 was of 19.02.2024 and rectification order was of 27.04.2024. The benefit of Judgement rendered in Eveready Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), therefore, cannot be given to the petitioner who has not explained the delay in approaching this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon an order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 1133 of 2025, 'M/s Pride Seeds Thru. Proprietor Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Commissioner, State Tax, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and Another', decided on 15.10.2025.
7. From the said judgement, it is not evident that as to when the writ petition was filed. The impugned order may have been passed on 18.04.2024.
8. The order itself on perusal does not show that the Court had adjudicated upon the question of delay in filing the writ petition.
9. Moreover, it is not a judgment, but only an order without framing the issue of delay in approaching the Court and whether such writ petition can be taken up even after unexplained laches for quashing an order which appropriately should be challenged in statutory appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings on record and we find that the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 and the order passed under Section 74 of the Act dated 19.04.2024 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given as no date, time and place of personal hearing has been indicated in the show cause notice.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents has pointed out WTAX No. 1433 of 2025
page 38 of the paper book which is the reminder notice issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2024 fixing date for submission of reply as 17.04.2024 and date of personal hearing as 17.04.2024, time of personal hearing has been given as 11:00 AM and the Office has been indicated as that of Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow, Section-20, Lucknow (C) : Lucknow II Uttar Pradesh.
12. It is evident that the petitioner had been informed of the date, time and venue of personal hearing. He did not find it appropriate to approach the Adjudicating Officer on the date, time and place of personal hearing.
13. We find no good ground to show interference in the impugned order.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. December 8, 2025 Darpan Sharma WTAX No. 1433 of 2025
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench