# M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-24
- **Case number:** Writ - Tax No. 1287 of 2024
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-solvi-enterprises-v-additional-commissioner-grade-2-anr-53068
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.

At the time of transaction- the purchaser i.e. the
petitioner and the seller both were registered-
registration of the selling dealer was not
cancelled from its inception -the transaction was
registered - the transaction in question is fully
covered by the statutory documents prescribed
under the Act- same supplier has filed its
returns i.e. GSTR- 01 and GSTR-3B - once the
seller was registered at the time of the
transaction- no adverse inference can be drawn
against the petitioner-impugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 3 ILRA 324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ - Tax No. 1287 of 2024
With other connected cases

M/S Solvi Enterprises ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

At the time of transaction- the purchaser i.e. the
petitioner and the seller both were registered-
registration of the selling dealer was not
cancelled from its inception -the transaction was
registered - the transaction in question is fully
covered by the statutory documents prescribed
under the Act- same supplier has filed its
returns i.e. GSTR- 01 and GSTR-3B - once the
seller was registered at the time of the
transaction- no adverse inference can be drawn
against the petitioner-impugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Karan. Vs Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt.
Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187

2. M/s Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its
Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia Vs St. of U.P.
Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of St. Tax, Lko & ors.-
Writ Tax No. 128 of 2024

3. M/s Shiv Trading Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-Writ
Tax No.1421 of 2022 4.M/S Rama Brick Field Vs
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 & ors.-Writ
Tax No. 909 of 2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Since the similar issues are involved
in aforesaid writ petitions, the same are
being decided together by this common
judgment.

2. For convenience, the facts of the
Writ Tax No.1287 of 2024 is being
delineated here-in-below:

3. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri RS.
Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents as well
as Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Bank.

4. By means of this writ petition, the
following prayer has been made:-

"I. Issue a suitable writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.10.2023 passed by the respondent no.1
in
Appeal
No.GST
-
AD091222030324L/2022
F.Y.
2018-19,
under the provisions of Section 74 of the
U.P.G.S.T./C.G.S.T. Act (Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition).

II. Issue a suitable writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
12.09.2022
passed/issued
by
the
respondent no.2 (Annexure no.4 to the writ
petition).

III. ...........

IV. ............"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a registered
dealer, which is engaged in the business of
sale and purchase of scraps etc., against
which, proceedings under Section 74 of the
UPGST
Act
were
initiated
by
the
3 All. M/S Solvi Enterprises Vs. Addititonal Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
325
respondent
no.2
for
the
tax
period
December, 2018-19, F.Y. 2018-19 vide
notice DRC-01 dated 29.07.2022 to which
a detailed reply was submitted by the
petitioner, however, without considering
the same, the impugned order dated
12.09.2022 was passed in violation of
Section 75 (4) of the UPGST/CGST Act.
Being aggrieved by the said order, an
appeal was filed by the petitioner, which
was dismissed vide impugned order dated
20.10.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner purchased the
goods from a registered dealer namely M/s.
Radhey International (hereinafter referred
to as "the seller"), vide tax invoice dated
06.12.2018, which was generated by the
seller from the GST Portal.

7. He further submits that the
authorities have power under the Act for
cancelling
the
registration
with
retrospective effect, but in the case at hand,
the date of transaction in question is of
06.12.2018 and whereas the registration of
the selling dealer has been cancelled with
effect from 29.01.2020.

8. The transaction in question is fully
covered by the statutory documents prescribed
under the Act. He further submits that merely
at the subsequent stage, if the selling dealer
was not found in a disclosed place of business,
or registration has been cancelled, the
petitioner cannot be held responsible for the
same. He further submits that the selling dealer
filed its return therefore, GSTR-2A was auto
generated,
showing
the
transaction
are
genuine. He prays for allowing the writ
petition.

9. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel supports the impugned order and
submits that the petitioner has failed to
bring on record any cogent material about
the actual physical motion of the goods and
therefore, the impugned order has rightly
been passed.

10. In support of his submission, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the
case of State of Karanataka Vs. Ecom Gill
Coffee Trading Private Limited, 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 187 as well as judgments of
this Court passed in Writ Tax No. 128 of
2024 (M/s Rajshi Processors Raebareli
Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia
Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt.
Of State Tax, Lko and 2 Others) and Writ
Tax No.1421 of 2022 (M/s Shiv Trading
Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). The
judgment of Shiv Trading (supra), decided
on 28.11.2023 was challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing
S.L.P. (c) No.3345 of 2024, which has been
dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2024. He
prays for dismissal of the aforesaid writ
petitions.

11. To the said submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case of M/s Ecom Gill Coffee (supra) is
not applicable in the present case as
therein, the seller was not registered and
had not filed his return, nor GSTR-2A was
generated; whereas in the case in hand, the
selling dealer was a registered dealer at the
time of transaction took place and auto
generated GSTR-2A was populated which
shows the transaction in question is
genuine.

12. Further, the judgment relied upon
by the learned Standing Counsel on M/s.
Rajshi Processors Raebareli (supra) is
also distinguished by stating that the
proceedings were initiated after being
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
survey conducted at the place of the
petitioner i.e. the purchaser in which
certain discrepancies in documents were
found, on that basis, further, the place of
the seller was inspected which was found
not in existence.

13. Upon hearing the parties, the Court
has perused the records.

14. It is not in dispute that the
purchase was made by the petitioner from
the firm, which was duly registered under
the GST Act at the time when the
transaction was made.

15. For deciding the issue in hand,
Sections 16 & 74 of the GST Act, 2017
will be relevant, which reads as follows:-

"16. Eligibility and conditions for
taking input tax credit.

(1) Every registered person shall,
subject to such conditions and restrictions
as may be prescribed and in the manner
specified in section 49, be entitled to take
credit of input tax charged on any supply of
goods or services or both to him which are
used or intended to be used in the course or
furtherance of his business and the said
amount shall be credited to the electronic
credit ledger of such person.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this section, no registered
person shall be entitled to the credit of any
input tax in respect of any supply of goods
or services or both to him unless,

(a) he is in possession of a tax
invoice or debit note issued by a supplier
registered under this Act, or such other tax
paying documents as may be prescribed;

(b) he has received the goods or
services or both.

Explanation. For the purposes of
this clause, it shall be deemed that the
registered person has received the goods
where the goods are delivered by the
supplier to a recipient or any other person
on the direction of such registered person,
whether acting as an agent or otherwise,
before or during movement of goods, either
by way of transfer of documents of title to
goods or otherwise;

(c) subject to the provisions of
section 41, the tax charged in respect of
such supply has been actually paid to the
Government, either in cash or through
utilisation of input tax credit admissible in
respect of the said supply; and

(d) he has furnished the return
under section 39:

Provided that where the goods
against an invoice are received in lots or
instalments, the registered person shall be
entitled to take credit upon receipt of the
last lot or instalment:

Provided further that where a
recipient fails to pay to the supplier of
goods or services or both, other than the
supplies on which tax is payable on reverse
charge basis, the amount towards the value
of supply along with tax payable thereon
within a period of one hundred and eighty
days from the date of issue of invoice by the
supplier, an amount equal to the input tax
credit availed by the recipient shall be
added to his output tax liability, along with
interest thereon, in such manner as may be
prescribed:

Provided also that the recipient
shall be entitled to avail of the credit of
input tax on payment made by him of the
amount towards the value of supply of
goods or services or both along with tax
payable thereon.

(3 ) Where the registered person
has claimed depreciation on the tax
component of the cost of capital goods and
plant and machinery under the provisions
of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961),
3 All. M/S Solvi Enterprises Vs. Addititonal Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
327
the input tax credit on the said tax
component shall not be allowed.

(4 ) A registered person shall not
be entitled to take input tax credit in
respect of any invoice or debit note for
supply of goods or services or both after
the due date of furnishing of the return
under section 39 for the month of
September following the end of financial
year to which such invoice or invoice
relating to such debit note pertains or
furnishing of the relevant annual return,
whichever is earlier.

74. Determination of tax not paid
or short paid or erroneously refunded or
input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised
by
reason
of
fraud
or
any
wilful
misstatement or suppression of facts.

(1) Where it appears to the
proper officer that any tax has not been
paid or short paid or erroneously refunded
or where input tax credit has been wrongly
availed or utilised by reason of fraud, or
any wilful-misstatement or suppression of
facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on
the person chargeable with tax which has
not been so paid or which has been so short
paid or to whom the refund has erroneously
been made, or who has wrongly availed or
utilised input tax credit, requiring him to
show cause as to why he should not pay the
amount specified in the notice along with
interest payable thereon under section 50
and a penalty equivalent to the tax
specified in the notice.

(2) The proper officer shall issue
the notice under sub-section (1) at least six
months prior to the time limit specified in
sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

(3) Where a notice has been
issued for any period under sub-section (1),
the proper officer may serve a statement,
containing the details of tax not paid or
short paid or erroneously refunded or input
tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for
such periods other than those covered
under sub-section (1), on the person
chargeable with tax.

(4) The service of statement
under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be
service of notice under sub-section (1) of
section 73, subject to the condition that the
grounds relied upon in the said statement,
except the ground of fraud, or any wilfulmisstatement or suppression of facts to
evade tax, for periods other than those
covered under sub-section (1) are the same
as are mentioned in the earlier notice.

(5) The person chargeable with
tax may, before service of notice under subsection (1), pay the amount of tax along
with interest payable under section 50 and
a penalty equivalent to fifteen per cent. of
such tax on the basis of his own
ascertainment of such tax or the tax as
ascertained by the proper officer and
inform the proper officer in writing of such
payment.

(6) The proper officer, on receipt
of such information, shall not serve any
notice under sub-section (1), in respect of
the tax so paid or any penalty payable
under the provisions of this Act or the rules
made thereunder.

(7) Where the proper officer is of
the opinion that the amount paid under
sub-section (5) falls short of the amount
actually payable, he shall proceed to issue
the notice as provided for in sub-section (1)
in respect of such amount which falls short
of the amount actually payable.

(8) Where any person chargeable
with tax under sub-section (1) pays the said
tax along with interest payable under
section 50 and a penalty equivalent to
twenty-five per cent. of such tax within
thirty days of issue of the notice, all
proceedings in respect of the said notice
shall be deemed to be concluded.
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(9) The proper officer shall, after
considering the representation, if any,
made by the person chargeable with tax,
determine the amount of tax, interest and
penalty due from such person and issue an
order. (10) The proper officer shall issue
the order under sub-section (9) within a
period of five 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 five
years from the date of erroneous refund.

(11) Where any person served
with an order issued under sub-section (9)
pays the tax along with interest payable
thereon under section 50 and a penalty
equivalent to fifty per cent. of such tax
within thirty days of communication of the
order, all proceedings in respect of the said
notice shall be deemed to be concluded.

Explanation 1. For the purposes
of section 73 and this section,?

(i)
the
expression
"all
proceedings in respect of the said notice"
shall not include proceedings under section
132;

(ii ) where the notice under the
same proceedings is issued to the main
person liable to pay tax and some other
persons, and such proceedings against the
main person have been concluded under
section 73 or section 74, the proceedings
against all the persons liable to pay penalty
under sections 122, 125, 129 and 130 are
deemed to be concluded.

Explanation 2. For the purposes
of this Act, the expression "suppression"
shall mean non-declaration of facts or
information which a taxable person is
required to declare in the return, statement,
report or any other document furnished
under this Act or the rules made
thereunder, or failure to furnish any
information on being asked for, in writing,
by the proper officer."

16. The perusal of the contents of
above-quoted Section 16 of the GST Act,
2017 shows that the input tax credit can be
claimed
only
on
the
fulfilment
of
conditions mentioned therein. It also
clarifies that no registered person shall be
entitled to the credit of any input tax in
respect of any supply of goods or services
or both.

17. The contents of above-quoted
Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 provides
for determination of tax not paid or short
paid or erroneously refunded or input tax
credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason
of fraud or any wilful misstatement or
suppression of fact.

18. Further, the Rule 36 of the GST
Rules, 2017 provides for document and
condition required for claiming input tax
credit, which reads as under:-

""Rule
36.
Documentary
requirements and conditions for claiming
input tax credit.-

(1) The input tax credit shall be
availed by a registered person, including
the Input Service Distributor, on the basis
of any of the following documents, namely,-

(a) an invoice issued by the
supplier of goods or services or both in
accordance with the provisions of section
31;

(b)
an
invoice
issued
in
accordance with the provisions of clause (f)
of sub-section (3) of section 31, subject to
the payment of tax;

(c) a debit note issued by a
supplier in accordance with the provisions
of section 34
3 All. M/S Solvi Enterprises Vs. Addititonal Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
329

(d) a bill of entry or any similar
document prescribed under the Customs
Act, 1962 or rules made thereunder for the
assessment of integrated tax on imports;

(e) an Input Service Distributor
invoice or Input Service Distributor credit
note or any document issued by an Input
Service Distributor in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 54.

(2) Input tax credit shall be
availed by a registered person only if all
the applicable particulars as specified in
the provisions of Chapter VI are contained
in the said document and the relevant
information, as contained in the said
document, is furnished in FORM G.S.T.R.-
2 by such person:

[Provided
that
if
the
said
document does not contain all the specified
particulars but contains the details of the
amount of tax charged, description of
goods or services, total value of supply of
goods or services or both, G.S.T.I.N. of the
supplier and recipient and place of supply
in case of inter-State supply, input tax
credit may be availed by such registered
person.]

(3) No input tax credit shall be
availed by a registered person in respect of
any tax that has been paid in pursuance of
any order where any demand has been
confirmed on account of any fraud, willful
misstatement or suppression of facts.

[(4) Input tax credit to be availed
by a registered person in respect of
invoices or debit notes the details of which
are required to be furnished by the
suppliers under sub-section (1) of Section
37 [In FORM G.S.T.R.-01 or using the
invoice furnishing facility] shall not exceed
[5 per cent] of the eligible credit available.
In respect of invoices or debit notes the
details of which have been furnished by the
suppliers under sub-section (1) of Section
37 [In FORM G.S.T.R.-01 or using the
invoice furnishing facility] under sub-

[Provided that the said condition
shall apply cumulatively for the period
February, March, April, May, June, July
and August, 2020 and the return in FORM
G.S.T.R.-3B for the tax period September,
2020 shall be furnished with the cumulative
adjustment of input tax credit for the said
months in accordance with the condition
above:]

[Provided
further
that
such
condition shall apply cumulatively for the
period April, May and June, 2021 and the
return in Form G.S.T.R.-3B for the tax
period June 2021 or quarter ending June,
2021, as the case may be, shall be
furnished with the cumulatively adjustment
of input tax credit for the said months in
accordance with the condition above:]"

19. Perusal of the contents of aforequoted Rule 36 of the GST Rules, 2017
provides that the required documents for
claiming input tax credit should be made
available and the same may be reflected in
GSTR-3B.

20. From the afore-quoted Sections 16
& 74 of the GST Act, 2017 as well as Rule
36 of the GST Rules, 2017, it is clear that
the provisions as provided, certain benefit
of input tax credit to the registered person
should be provided on the fulfilment of
conditions as well as documents required to
be provided therein.

21. Furthermore, Section 74 of the GST
Act, 2017 provides the power to the Stateauthorities to proceed against the registered
dealer if I.T.C. has wrongly availed or utilized
by reason of fraud or wilful misstatement of
fact or by means of fraud, and upon the
adjudication, can recover the same.
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. In the case in hand, the
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner under Section 74 of the GST Act,
2017 as the registration of the seller dealer
has been cancelled on subsequent date i.e.
with effect from 29.01.2020, thus, the date
of transaction was admittedly took place
prior to it i.e. on 06.12.2018.

23. Further, the record shows that the
GST authorities are empowered to cancel
the registration from the date of inception
of proceedings, but the authorities in their
wisdom cancelled the registration of the
seller on a subsequent date i.e. with effect
from 29.01.2020.

24. It is not the case of the Revenue
that at the time when the transaction took
place, the selling dealer was not registered
and was not having valid registration under
the GST Act.

25. The record shows that the supplier
has filed its returns i.e. GSTR-01 and
GSTR-3B. It is a matter of common
knowledge that after filing of GSTR-01, an
auto populated window would be open for
filling the GSTR-3B for payment of tax and
GSTR-2A can be viewed by the purchaser
of the goods in question. Once the said
form was generated and the said fact has
not been disputed by the authorities below
while passing the impugned order, the
authorities have failed to consider the fact
that GSTR-3B & GSTR-2A, as prescribed
under the Act, which was auto populated to
which not a single word has been
whispered in the impugned orders. On the
contrary, an observation has been made
against the petitioner that he had failed to
bring on record any cogent material that the
seller has deposited the tax.

26. At the time when the transaction
took place, the purchaser i.e. the petitioner
and the seller both were registered,
however, at the subsequent time, the seller
was found non-existing and the registration
of
the
seller
has
not
cancelled
retrospectively i.e. from the date of
transaction.

27. The judgment of M/s Rajshi
Processors (supra), cited by the Revenue,
has been passed on the pretext that the
supplier was non-existing dealer and its
registration was cancelled from the date of
its inception, but in the case in hand,
registration of the selling dealer has been
cancelled w.e.f. 29.01.2020, which shows
that
the
transaction
took
place
on
06.12.2018 and on the said date, the selling
dealer was having valid registration. Thus,
on the said facts, the judgment passed in
the M/s Rajshi Processors (supra) is of no
aid to the Revenue.

28. Further, the judgment of Shiv
Trading (supra) wherein the reliance has also
been placed upon the judgment of Ecom Gill
Coffee Trading Private Limited (supra),
decided on 28.11.2023 was challenged before
the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing
S.L.P. (c) No.3345 of 2024, which has been
dismissed and the order dated 28.11.2023
was confirmed vide order dated 12.02.2024.
In the said judgment, the finding of GSTR3B was not taken care of and therefore, the
said judgment on facts of the present case is
of no aid to the respondents.

29. This Court in the case of M/S
Rama
Brick
Field
Vs.
Additional
Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 others (Writ
Tax No. 909 of 2022), in paragraph nos. 8,
9 & 10 has held as under:-
3 All. M/S Solvi Enterprises Vs. Addititonal Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
331

"8. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner has opted for compounding
which has been accepted by the respondent
authorities for a period of 1.10.2017 to
21.3.2019. The disputed purchase as shown
by the petitioner from Rohit Coal Trader
pertains to May 2018 to June 2018, which
falls under the aforesaid period of
composition. The petitioner in support of
his contention has adduced evidence such
as tax invoice, e-way bill, G.R., payment
receipts etc. to show that the purchases
have been made from the registered dealer.
It is also admitted that the registration of
Rohit Coal Traders has been cancelled vide
order dated 24.10.2019 in other words at
the time of transaction in question, the
seller
i.e.
Rohit
Coal
Traders
was
registered firm under the G.S.T. Act. It has
been argued on behalf of petitioner that
Rohit Coal Traders has filed his return for
A.Y. 2018-19 ie. GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. It
is a matter of common knowledge that after
filing of GSTR -1, an auto pop up widow
would be opened for filing of Form GSTR 3
B for payment of tax and form GSTR 2 A
can be viewed by the purchaser of goods in
question. Once the said form was generated
and the said fact has not been disputed by
the authorities below while passing of the
impugned order, which goes without saying
that at the time of transaction, purchaser
and
supplier
both
were
registered.
However at the subsequent time if the seller
i.e. Rohit Coal Trader was found non-
existence, the proceeding can be initiated but
the authorities has failed to consider the fact
that GSTR returns as prescribed under the
Act was filed by the seller to which not a
single word has been whispered while
passing the impugned order. On the contrary
an observation has been made that the
petitioner has failed to bring on record any
cogent material to show that Rohit Coal
Traders has deposited the tax and therefore
proceedings were held to be justified.

9. Under the GST regime all details
are available in the portal of GST
department. The authorities could have very
well verified as to whether after filing of
GSTR-1 and GSTR 3 B how much tax has
been deposited by the selling dealer i.e. Rohit
Coal Traders but the authorities have failed
to do so. Thus looking to the said facts, the
impugned orders cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.

10. In view of the facts as stated
above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.
The matter is remanded to the first appellate
authority, who shall pass a fresh order in
accordance
with
law,
expeditiously,
preferably within a period of two months
from the date of producing a certified copy of
this order, without granting any unnecessary
adjournment to the parties."

30. Once the seller was registered at the
time of the transaction in question, no adverse
inference can be drawn against the petitioner.
Further, the record shows that the registration of
the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively
i.e. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 and not from its inception
which goes to show that the transaction
between petitioner and seller was registered and
having valid registration in his favour.

31. That under the GST regime, all details
are available in the GST Portal and therefore,
authorities ought to have been verified the same
as to whether the filing of GSTR-1A and GSTR3B, how much tax has been deposited by the
seller, but the authorities have failed to do
so.

32. Thus, looking to the above facts
and circumstances of the cases, the matters
require re-consideration.
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

33. Accordingly, the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and
the same are hereby quashed.

34. The writ petitions are allowed.
The matter is remanded to the authority
concerned for deciding afresh by passing
a reasoned and speaking order, after
hearing all the stakeholder, within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this
order.

35. Any amount deposited by the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders,
shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh
orders to be passed by the authority
concerned.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 332
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Writ - A No. 2359 of 2025

Munna Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Nasir, Sri Mohd. Yasir, Sri
Navneet Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant's
Conduct
Rules,
1956- Writ Petition - challenging the Tribunal's
order - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal
from service in year 2013 - petitioner claimed
that he never received the dismissal order -
which prevented him from filing an appeal or
revision under Rules, 1991 - Representation in
year 2016 - Rejection in year 2016 - 1st Claim
petition in year 2016 - order for decide the
representation of the petitioner - authority
rejected the representation in year 2017 - 2nd
Claim Petition in year 2018 - Tribunal dismissed
said claim petition, on the grounds of delay -
writ petition - Petitioner argued that rejection of
representation of the petitioner gave rise to a
fresh cause of action, invoking the doctrine of
merger - The Court observed that, tribunal
erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on
the ground of limitation without appreciating
that the petitioner had diligently pursued his
remedies and the doctrine of merger had come
into effect - and since the petitioner promptly
pursued the remedies upon se5rvice of the
dismissal order, the claim of the petitioner could
not held to be time-barred by overlooking the
scheme of statutory Rules - held, the rejection of
the claim petition merely on the ground of
limitation is legally unsustainable in view of the
application of doctrine of merger which followed as
a result of non-supply of the order passed in the
year 2013 giving rise to representation under Rule
25 of Rules, 1991 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - and the matter is remitted to the
Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits - direction
issued accordingly. (Para - 28, 32, 35)

Review Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Income Tax Appeal No. 86 of 2015 (Umang
Agarwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle, Allahabad,

2. St. of West Bengal Vs Confederation of St.
Government Employees, (2019) 3 Cal LJ 351,

3. Chhajju Ram Vs Neki , 1922 SCC OnLine PC
11 : (1921-22) 49 IA 144 : AIR 1922 PC 112],

4. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526],

5. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I., (2000) 6 SCC 224 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 1056,