Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/562/2026 of VINAYAK METAL INDUSTRIES Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 10 July 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 10th July, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 562 OF 2026 Vinayak Metal Industries ….Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner, SGST,
UKHC010116342026
2026:UHC:5634-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
10th July, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 562 OF 2026
Vinayak Metal Industries
….Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Uttarakhand.
…Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner
: Sri Pankaj Tiwar, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent
: Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT : (PER: SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.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. The petitioner has challenged the order in original dated 15.02.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and show cause notice dated 29.11.2024 based on which the order under Section 73 of the Act has been passed. He has also prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive measure against him in pursuance of the order passed under Section 73 of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-firm has deposited the entire amount of tax in the subsequent financial year and, therefore, the petitioner-firm be granted liberty to apply for rectification and direction be issued to the Department to consider the same in accordance with law.
UKHC010116342026
2026:UHC:5634-DB
3. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue submits that the order passed under Section 73 of the Act is open to challenge in Appeal, but which remedy has not been availed by the petitioner-firm so far.
4. However, since the petitioner seeks liberty to apply for rectification, therefore, without going into the validity of the order, we dispose of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner-firm to apply for rectification. We further provide that in case any rectification application is filed, along with evidence to show that the tax being demanded vide the impugned order was deposited by the petitioner-firm in the subsequent financial year, the concerned respondent shall decide the rectification application on merits expeditiously.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 10th July, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1 097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179 B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.07.13 17:36:19 +05'30'