Uttarakhand High Court

WPMB/339/2025 of MAA BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs COMMISSIONER STATE TAX DEHRADUN on 23 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 23RD JULY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 339 of 2025 1: Maa Bhagwati Construction Company --Petitioner Versus 1: Commissioner State Tax Dehradun 2:

UKHC010079882025

2026:UHC:6288-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

23RD JULY, 2026

WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 339 of 2025

1: Maa Bhagwati Construction Company

--Petitioner

Versus

1: Commissioner State Tax Dehradun

2: Assistant Commissioner (Appeal) State Tax, State Tax Building, Dehradun 3: Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Division-3, Roorkee, District Haridwar

--Respondents

Counsel for petitioner.

: Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents.

: Ms.

Puja

Banga,

learned

Standing

Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his appeal dated 25.03.2025, filed under Section 107 of the GST Act, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

2. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), State Tax, Unit-3, Roorkee dated 21.06.2023 under Section 74(9) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was filed on 14.01.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 107(1) read with 107(4) of the Act.

3. By detailed order passed on 17.07.2026, we have held that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to

UKHC010079882025

2026:UHC:6288-DB

entertain the appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4) of the Act.

4. In view of the same, we find no illegality in the impugned order of the appellate authority. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

5. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 23rd July, 2026 Rahul

RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e6 1bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192F CAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.07.27 17:29:11 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead