State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others v. M/S Gupta Traders Near Chhatrapati Market, Barabanki Thru. Its Prop. Balram Gupta And Another

6. The only objection raised by Shri Abhishek Sharan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the notification on the 3 CMRAD No. 97 of 2025 strength of which the review application has been filed which is dated

21.07.2022 was already in possession of the appellants, but they did not place it in the writ proceedings, therefore, there was lack of due diligence, as such the judgment should not be reviewed. The contention has been advanced only to be rejected. Exercise of power of review by the High Court in the circumstances before us is in exercise of its inherent powers. It is another thing that we may be guided by the principles contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C., but we are not inhebited by it.

7. The ground for seeking review goes to the root of the matter and renders our judgment erroneous.

8. Apparently, on account of the said notification dated 21.07.2022, although by virtue of Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs Notification dated 03.02.2018 the date for filing annual return for the financial year 2017-18 which would normally be 31.12.2018 stood extended till 05.02.2020 and based on the said notification, the period of three years mentioned in Sub-section 10 of Section 73 would end on

05.02.2023, meaning thereby, an order under Sub-Section 9 of Section 73 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 and not thereafter for the assessment year 2017-18, however, in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 21.07.2022 which came into effect from 01.03.2020, the time limit specified under Sub-Section 10 of Section 73 for issuance of order under Sub-Section 9 of Section 73 of the Act 2017 for recovery of taxes not paid or short paid or of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized in respect of a tax period, i.e. assessment year 2017-18, stood extended up to the 30th day of September, 2023 and by the subsequent notification of the State Government dated 24.04.2023 which has been given effect from

31.03.2023 the said time limit stood further extended till 31.12.2023. 4 CMRAD No. 97 of 2025

9. As the error is fundamental, therefore, the objection of the respondent- petitioner who himself was obliged to place the said notification, but did not do so, therefore, he cannot raise such an objection. Therefore, the judgment by which the above mentioned writ petition was allowed on the ground that the proceedings under Section 73 were time barred, is apparently erroneous as, in the said writ petition the impugned order was passed prior to 31.12.2021 and as the judgment under Review was rendered in ignorance of notification dated 21.07.2022 and 24.04.2023. Accordingly, the said judgment is liable to be reviewed. We accordingly review and recall the same. The review application stands allowed. Consequently, the writ petition in which the review application has been allowed stands restored to its original number and shall now be listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration of other grounds raised, if any. All pleas including the plea of statutory remedy of appeal is open for consideration. December 18, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. The only objection raised by Shri Abhishek Sharan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the notification on the 3 CMRAD No. 97 of 2025 strength of which the review application has been filed which is dated

21.07.2022 was already in possession of the appellants, but they did not place it in the writ proceedings, therefore, there was lack of due diligence, as such the judgment should not be reviewed. The contention has been advanced only to be rejected. Exercise of power of review by the High Court in the circumstances before us is in exercise of its inherent powers. It is another thing that we may be guided by the principles contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C., but we are not inhebited by it.

7. The ground for seeking review goes to the root of the matter and renders our judgment erroneous.

8. Apparently, on account of the said notification dated 21.07.2022, although by virtue of Central Board of Direct Taxes and Customs Notification dated 03.02.2018 the date for filing annual return for the financial year 2017-18 which would normally be 31.12.2018 stood extended till 05.02.2020 and based on the said notification, the period of three years mentioned in Sub-section 10 of Section 73 would end on

05.02.2023, meaning thereby, an order under Sub-Section 9 of Section 73 could have been passed by 05.02.2023 and not thereafter for the assessment year 2017-18, however, in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 21.07.2022 which came into effect from 01.03.2020, the time limit specified under Sub-Section 10 of Section 73 for issuance of order under Sub-Section 9 of Section 73 of the Act 2017 for recovery of taxes not paid or short paid or of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized in respect of a tax period, i.e. assessment year 2017-18, stood extended up to the 30th day of September, 2023 and by the subsequent notification of the State Government dated 24.04.2023 which has been given effect from

31.03.2023 the said time limit stood further extended till 31.12.2023. 4 CMRAD No. 97 of 2025

9. As the error is fundamental, therefore, the objection of the respondent- petitioner who himself was obliged to place the said notification, but did not do so, therefore, he cannot raise such an objection. Therefore, the judgment by which the above mentioned writ petition was allowed on the ground that the proceedings under Section 73 were time barred, is apparently erroneous as, in the said writ petition the impugned order was passed prior to 31.12.2021 and as the judgment under Review was rendered in ignorance of notification dated 21.07.2022 and 24.04.2023. Accordingly, the said judgment is liable to be reviewed. We accordingly review and recall the same. The review application stands allowed. Consequently, the writ petition in which the review application has been allowed stands restored to its original number and shall now be listed before the appropriate Bench for consideration of other grounds raised, if any. All pleas including the plea of statutory remedy of appeal is open for consideration. December 18, 2025 Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench