# M/s Manoj Glass v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 303 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-manoj-glass-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53121
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 44(1),
73(9) & 73(10) - Writ of Certiorari - ExParte Assessment Order - Limitation Period -
Extension of Time Limit by Notification -
Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy of Appeal.

Held:
The
petitioner
challenged
an
ex-parte
assessment order dated 13.12.2023 under
Section 73(9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017,
imposing a tax liability of Rs.1,12,827.38,
penalty
of
Rs.20,000,
and
interest
of
Rs.1,14,787.42, contending it was timebarred under Section 73(10). The petitioner
relied on *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*, which
quashed similar orders for the financial year
2017-18 as beyond the three-year limit from
the extended annual return filing date of
05.02.2020
(i.e.,
05.02.2023).
The
respondents
cited
notifications
dated
21.07.2022
(effective
from
01.03.2020,
extending the limit to 30.09.2023) and
24.04.2023
(effective
from
31.03.2023,
extending to 31.12.2023) for the financial
year 2017-18. The Court held that the
notification
dated
21.07.2022,
not
considered in *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*,
validly extended the limitation period, and
the order dated 13.12.2023 was within the
extended
limit
of
31.12.2023.
As
the
notifications
were
unchallenged
and
an
appellate remedy was available, the writ
petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Writ
petition
dismissed;
alternative
remedy of appeal available.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mutation, contained in Annexure-20 and
order dated 21.12.1999 passed by the
Additional/ Naib Tehsildar are set aside.

19. However, the S.D.M., Sadar,
Sultanpur is directed to hand over the
possession of Plot No.1025 Area 0-8-0, Plot
No.1344 Area 0-3-10 and Plot No.961 Area 02-5 situated at Village Katka Khanpur, Tehsil
Sadar, District Sultanpur after granting
mutation on the basis of confirmation of sale
in view of above-referred provisions to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 303 of 2025

M/s Manoj Glass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Kant, Anshuman Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 44(1),
73(9) & 73(10) - Writ of Certiorari - ExParte Assessment Order - Limitation Period -
Extension of Time Limit by Notification -
Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy of Appeal.

Held:
The
petitioner
challenged
an
ex-parte
assessment order dated 13.12.2023 under
Section 73(9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017,
imposing a tax liability of Rs.1,12,827.38,
penalty
of
Rs.20,000,
and
interest
of
Rs.1,14,787.42, contending it was timebarred under Section 73(10). The petitioner
relied on *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*, which
quashed similar orders for the financial year
2017-18 as beyond the three-year limit from
the extended annual return filing date of
05.02.2020
(i.e.,
05.02.2023).
The
respondents
cited
notifications
dated
21.07.2022
(effective
from
01.03.2020,
extending the limit to 30.09.2023) and
24.04.2023
(effective
from
31.03.2023,
extending to 31.12.2023) for the financial
year 2017-18. The Court held that the
notification
dated
21.07.2022,
not
considered in *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*,
validly extended the limitation period, and
the order dated 13.12.2023 was within the
extended
limit
of
31.12.2023.
As
the
notifications
were
unchallenged
and
an
appellate remedy was available, the writ
petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Writ
petition
dismissed;
alternative
remedy of appeal available.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024* - Orders
under Section 73(9) for financial year 2017-18
quashed as time-barred, but decision overlooked
notification
dated
21.07.2022
extending
limitation.

Observation:
The Court observed that the notification dated
21.07.2022,
effective
from
01.03.2020,
4 All. M/s Manoj Glass Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
extended the limitation period under Section
73(10) to 30.09.2023, and the subsequent
notification dated 24.04.2023 further extended it
to 31.12.2023 for the financial year 2017-18.
The impugned order dated 13.12.2023 was thus
within
the
permissible
time
frame.
The
petitioner's reliance on *Writ Tax No. 264
of 2024* was misplaced due to the earlier
judgment's
failure
to
consider
the
21.07.2022 notification, which altered the
limitation period. The petitioner did not
challenge
the
notifications,
and
an
alternative remedy of appeal was available.
The
Court
noted
a
proposed
review
application for *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*
due to the oversight of the 21.07.2022
notification.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1.
Shri
Shobit
Kant,
learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition
the petitioner has challenged ex-parte
order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Sector 21, State
GST, Lucknow under Section 73(9) of
Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 by which
tax liability of Rs.1,12,827.38/- as well
as the penalty of Rs.20,000/- and
interest of Rs.1,14,787.42/- have been
imposed.

3. The contention of the petitioner's
counsel was that order is time barred.
He invited our attention to a judgment
passed by us on 12.11.2024 in Writ Tax
No. 264 of 2024 to submit that based on
the said judgment this writ petition is liable
to be allowed. The said judgment reads as
under:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit on
behalf of petitioner and short counter
affidavit on behalf of State filed today are
taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Anuj Kudesia,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State as also Shri Akhilesh Kumar,
Deputy
Commissioner,
State
G.S.T.,
Lucknow, who is present before this Court.

3. The present writ petition has
been filed with the following reliefs:-

"i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the order on Form GST DRC-13
dated
05.10.2024
issued
by
Deputy
Commissioner, State Tax, Sector 05,
Lucknow contained as annexure no. 1 to
this writ petition.

ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the assessment order and DRC07 dated 02.12.2023 issued by Deputy
Commissioner,
State
Tax,
Sector-5,
Lucknow contained as annexure no. 2 to
this writ petition.

iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to direct the
petitioner bank to de-freeze the two bank
accounts operated petitioners i.e. account
No.
7711564951
and
Accout
No.
9946014812 in Kotak Mahindra Bank."

4. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned orders are barred by sub
Section 10 of Section 73 of the U.P.G.S.T.
Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, the
Act, 2017) as they have been passed
beyond the time limit prescribed therein
as calculated from the due date of filing
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annual returns prescribed in Section 44 (1),
which was extended to 05.02.2020 and the
time limit of three years ended on
05.02.2023 but the impugned orders are
dated
05.10.2024
and
02.12.2023,
therefore, the impugned orders are without
jurisdiction.

5. After hearing the parties, what
comes out is that for justifying the time
limit within which the impugned orders
have been passed under Section 73 (9) and
(10) of the Act, 2017 for the financial year
2017-18 reliance is being placed upon a
notification dated 24.04.2023 by which the
time limit of three years mentioned in sub
Section 10 of Section 73 was extended for
the
financial
year
2017-18
upto
31.12.2023, however, what is being omitted
from consideration by the opposite party is
that this notification dated 24.04.2023 has
been given retrospective effect only from
31.03.2023 and not prior to it, now, in this
context we may refer to Section 73 (10) of
the Act, 2017, which reads as under:-

"(10) The proper officer shall
issue the order under sub-section (9) within
three years from the due date for furnishing
of annual return for the financial year to
which the tax not paid or short paid or
input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised
relates to or within three years from the
date of erroneous refund."

6. We may also refer to Section
44(1) of the Act, 2017, which reads as
under:-

"44. Annual return -(1) Every
registered person, other than an Input
Service Distributor, a person paying tax
under section 51 or section 52, a casual
taxable person and a non-resident taxable
person, shall furnish an annual return for
every financial year electronically in such
form and manner as may be prescribed on
or before the thirty-first day of December
following the end of such financial year.

Provided that the Commissioner
may, on the recommendations of the
Council and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by notification, extend the time
limit for furnishing the annual return for
such class of registered persons as may be
specified therein:

Provided
further
that
any
extension of time limit notified by the
Commissioner of Central tax shall be
deemed
to
be
notified
by
the
Commissioner."

7. Ordinarily the due date for
filing annual return is 31st December of the
end of the Financial Year, which in the
case of financial year 2017-18 would be
31.12.2018, however, this due date for
filing annual return, as already observed
earlier, was extended vide notification of
the Central Board of Direct Taxes and
Customs dated, 03.02.2018 to 05.02.2020
and this notification was adopted by the
State of U.P. vide notification dated
05.02.2020. Based on this 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 for the
financial year 2017-18 could have been
passed by 05.02.2023 but not after it. Now
the opposite parties are relying on the
notification dated 24.04.2023 to submit that
in fact they could have passed the order
under sub Section 9 of Section 73 uptill
31.12.2023 however in doing so, they omit
to consider para no. 2 of the said
notification which says that the notification
dated 24.04.2023 would be applicable
retrospectively but only from 31.03.2023
meaning thereby, if the time limit of three
years prescribed in sub Section 10 of
Section 73 read with sub Section 1 of
Section 44 expired prior to 31.03.2023 then
the notification dated 24.04.2023 extending
the time limit for passing of an order under
4 All. M/s Manoj Glass Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
327
sub Section 9 of Section 73 would not be
applicable, apparently so.

8.
Apparently
the
impugned
orders are beyond the time limit prescribed
under sub Section 10 of Section 73 as
applicable for the financial year 2017-18
and therefore the impugned orders are
beyond jurisdiction being barred by the
time provided in the said provision,
therefore, we allow the writ petition and
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023 issued by the
Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector
05, Lucknow

9. Consequences shall follow,
accordingly. The accounts of the petitioner
which have been freezed shall be defreezed."

4. However, Shri Rajesh Tiwari,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State has placed before us a
Notification dated 21.07.2022 which was
not brought to our notice while deciding the
Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024. The said
Notification reads as Under:-

"NOTIFICATION
----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
No.-596/XI-2-22-9(47)/17-T.C.187-U.P.
Act-1-2017-Order-(249)-2022
Lucknow:
Dated: July 21, 2022

-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 168A of the Uttar Pradesh Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. Act no. 1
of 2017) (hereinafter referred to as the said
Act) read with section 20 of the integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of
2017) and in partial modification of the
notifications
No.-445/XI-2-9(47)/17-U.P.
Act-1 of 2017-Order-(118)-2020 dated
11.05.2020 and No.-496/XI-2-21-9(47)17U.P. Act-1-2017-Order-(186)-2021 dated
28.06.2021,
the
Governor,
on
the
recommendations of the Council, hereby,-

(i) extends the time limit specified
under sub-section (10) of Section 73 for
issuance of order under sub-section (9) of
section 73 of the said Act, for recovery of
tax not paid or short paid or of input tax
credit wrongly availed or utilized, in
respect of a tax period for the financial
year 2017-18, up to the 30th day of
September, 2023.

(ii) excludes the period from the
1st day of March, 2020 to the 28th day of
February, 2022 for computation of period
of limitation under sub-section (10) of
section 73 of the said Act for issuance of
order under sub-section (9) of section 73 of
the said Act, for recovery of erroneous
refund;

(iii) excludes the period from the
1st day of March, 2020 to the 28th day of
February, 2022 for computation of period
of limitation for filing refund application
under section 54 or section 55 of the said
Act.

2. This notification shall be
deemed to have come into force with effect
from the 1st day of March, 2020."

5. When we take into consideration the
notification aforesaid what we find is that
though by virtue of the 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 for the financial year 2017-18,
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
however, in view of the Notification dated
21.07.2022 which came into effect from
01.03.2020 the said time limit specified
under Sub-section 10 of Section 73 for
issuance of order under Sub-section 9 of
Section 73 of the U.P. GST 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 for the
financial year 2017-18, stood excluded 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 extended till 31.12.2023
for the financial year 2017-18.

6. In the case at hand, the impugned
order has been passed on 13.12.2023,
therefore, it has been passed within the
time limit as extended by the Notifications
referred hereinabove. The said notifications
are not under challenge.

7. The aforesaid notification dated
21.07.2022 was not brought to the notice of
the Court while passing the order in Writ
Tax No. 264 of 2024 otherwise the result
may have been different.

8. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State says that a review application is
proposed to be filed in said Writ Tax No.
264 of 2024 and in other similar matters
where the benefit of the said judgment
has been granted.

9. So far as the facts of the present
case are concerned, the impugned order
of assessment dated 13.12.2023 is not
barred by time, therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable as remedy of
appeal is prescribed against such an
order.

10. The petitioner has not brought the
said Circular on record.

11. In view of the above, the writ
petition is dismissed.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 1386 of 2023

M/s Kamakhya Trader ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129 - Writ
of Certiorari - Goods in Transit - Physical
Verification - MOV-04 Report - Tax Invoices - EWay Bills - Change of Stand by Revenue -
Consistency in Administrative Action.

Held:

The petitioner challenged an appellate order
dated 10.11.2023 [Appeal No. 0513/2023,
Assessment Year 2023-24] upholding a demand
issued after the interception of goods in transit
from Guwahati to Delhi via Uttar Pradesh on
21.09.2023 in Amroha. At interception, the
petitioner produced valid tax invoices, e-