M/S Ahsan Enterprises Thru. Partner Mohd. Jamil Zaidi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration

First Appellate Order dated 24.09.2025 contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the first appellate authority of GST Department to entertain the appeal of petitioner against the impugned order of imposition of huge tax date 28.09.2024." Learned counsel for the petitioner has been submitted that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ Tax No. 1409 of 2025 (M/s Techspa India Thru Propretor Mrs. Gulnaz Shahab Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2025. The said judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as a result, the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017 (in short, 'the Act of 2017'). 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of imposition of penalty has been passed against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Act of 2017. 2 WTAX No. 1583 of 2025

5. It is urged that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would reveal that maximum penalty which can be awarded is only Rs.25,000/- and even otherwise for doing so, the authority was required to record its reasons.

6. It is also urged that Section 125 of the Act of 2017 is a residuary clause and can be resorted once it is found that there is any violation of any provisions of the Act and the Rules which otherwise is not covered under any other provisions.

7. The submission is that the alleged violation as committed by the petitioner is non- filing of the returns in time. This violation is covered in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 2017, wherein the proposed penalty is Rs.100/- per day beyond which the returns are filed with delay and it is upto maximum of Rs.5,000/-.

8. It is contended that insofar as the aforesaid default is concerned which relates to non-filing of the returns in time, at best, the petitioner would be charged in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 2017, however, by imposing penalty under Section 125 of the Act of 2017 and that too beyond the prescribed limit vitiates the order and it cannot be sustained.

9. It is also urged that thereafter the petitioner had filed the appeal, which has been rejected only on the ground of limitation. In such circumstances, the initial order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 19.03.2025 is against the statutory prescription and the order passed in appeal is in default without condoning the delay and in such circumstances, the valuable opportunity has been denied to the petitioner which has resulted in orders which stands vitiated.

10. Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- Revenue submits that insofar as the order imposing a penalty is concerned, the same apparently cannot be beyond Rs.25,000/- which is the statutory prescription.

11. Since, the proposition as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is evident from the record and the orders passed, hence, no cause would be served for calling a counter as the order appears to be patently against the provisions of the Act of 2017.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the order impugned is per se against the statutory provisions, cannot be sustained. From a bare perusal of the order dated 19.03.2025, it would reveal that the authority has quoted Section 125 of the Act of 2017 yet while passing the order, it has exceeded the limit. The issue regarding the appeal which has been dismissed as time barred, is also a manner in which if the illegality as evident from the order dated 19.03.2025 is not corrected, it would perpetuate an illegality. 13. In the given circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 30.10.2025 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the respondent No.3, who after affording an opportunity of hearing shall pass fresh orders after taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. 3 WTAX No. 1583 of 2025

14. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. " It is further submitted that case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order. Learned State Counsel has very fairly submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Writ Tax No. 1409 of 2025 (M/s Techspa India Thru Propretor Mrs. Gulnaz Shahab Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). In the given circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 24.09.2025 are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the respondent No.4, who after affording an opportunity of hearing shall pass fresh orders after taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. December 15, 2025 Ashish (Manish Kumar,J.) ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

First Appellate Order dated 24.09.2025 contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the first appellate authority of GST Department to entertain the appeal of petitioner against the impugned order of imposition of huge tax date 28.09.2024." Learned counsel for the petitioner has been submitted that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in Writ Tax No. 1409 of 2025 (M/s Techspa India Thru Propretor Mrs. Gulnaz Shahab Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2025. The said judgment and order is being reproduced hereinbelow:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as a result, the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 has been affirmed insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017 (in short, 'the Act of 2017'). 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of imposition of penalty has been passed against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Act of 2017. 2 WTAX No. 1583 of 2025

5. It is urged that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would reveal that maximum penalty which can be awarded is only Rs.25,000/- and even otherwise for doing so, the authority was required to record its reasons.

6. It is also urged that Section 125 of the Act of 2017 is a residuary clause and can be resorted once it is found that there is any violation of any provisions of the Act and the Rules which otherwise is not covered under any other provisions.

7. The submission is that the alleged violation as committed by the petitioner is non- filing of the returns in time. This violation is covered in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 2017, wherein the proposed penalty is Rs.100/- per day beyond which the returns are filed with delay and it is upto maximum of Rs.5,000/-.

8. It is contended that insofar as the aforesaid default is concerned which relates to non-filing of the returns in time, at best, the petitioner would be charged in terms of Section 47 of the Act of 2017, however, by imposing penalty under Section 125 of the Act of 2017 and that too beyond the prescribed limit vitiates the order and it cannot be sustained.

9. It is also urged that thereafter the petitioner had filed the appeal, which has been rejected only on the ground of limitation. In such circumstances, the initial order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 19.03.2025 is against the statutory prescription and the order passed in appeal is in default without condoning the delay and in such circumstances, the valuable opportunity has been denied to the petitioner which has resulted in orders which stands vitiated.

10. Shri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- Revenue submits that insofar as the order imposing a penalty is concerned, the same apparently cannot be beyond Rs.25,000/- which is the statutory prescription.

11. Since, the proposition as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is evident from the record and the orders passed, hence, no cause would be served for calling a counter as the order appears to be patently against the provisions of the Act of 2017.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the order impugned is per se against the statutory provisions, cannot be sustained. From a bare perusal of the order dated 19.03.2025, it would reveal that the authority has quoted Section 125 of the Act of 2017 yet while passing the order, it has exceeded the limit. The issue regarding the appeal which has been dismissed as time barred, is also a manner in which if the illegality as evident from the order dated 19.03.2025 is not corrected, it would perpetuate an illegality. 13. In the given circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 30.10.2025 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the respondent No.3, who after affording an opportunity of hearing shall pass fresh orders after taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. 3 WTAX No. 1583 of 2025

14. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. " It is further submitted that case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order. Learned State Counsel has very fairly submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 02.12.2025 passed in Writ Tax No. 1409 of 2025 (M/s Techspa India Thru Propretor Mrs. Gulnaz Shahab Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). In the given circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 24.09.2025 are quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the respondent No.4, who after affording an opportunity of hearing shall pass fresh orders after taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment. With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. December 15, 2025 Ashish (Manish Kumar,J.) ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench