The Supreme Court has granted a taxpayer an additional 30 days to file a statutory appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while directing that no objection regarding limitation should be raised if the appeal is filed within the extended period.
The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar also kept all the taxpayer’s contentions open, including the question of whether a fresh pre-deposit would be required when a pre-deposit had allegedly already been made in parallel proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Court passed the order in a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Hari Om Udyog against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petition arose from a May 21, 2026 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 1680 of 2026.
Buy Now: 150 + Judgments On GST – E-Compilation For August 2026
The dispute concerned an order dated December 3, 2025, passed by the concerned authority under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act for the financial year 2018-19. The taxpayer had challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction.
The High Court rejected the taxpayer’s challenge to the Section 74 order. However, instead of completely closing the remedy available to the taxpayer, it granted liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority by filing a statutory appeal within a reasonable period.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the taxpayer sought intervention against the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court first condoned the delay in refiling or curing the defects in the Special Leave Petition and heard the counsel appearing for the taxpayer.
The Court, however, declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition in view of the fact that the High Court had already preserved the taxpayer’s right to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
“Having regard to the above, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition,” the Bench observed.
At the same time, the Supreme Court granted further protection to ensure that the statutory appeal was not defeated solely on the ground of delay. It allowed the taxpayer an additional period of 30 days from September 2, 2026, the date of the Supreme Court’s order, to file the appeal.
The Court expressly directed that if the statutory appeal is filed within the extended period, an objection concerning limitation should not be raised. The direction effectively permits the appellate authority to consider the dispute on its merits, subject to the taxpayer complying with the 30-day timeline fixed by the Court.
A significant aspect of the order concerns the statutory pre-deposit ordinarily associated with the filing of a GST appeal. Counsel for the taxpayer submitted that a pre-deposit had already been made in parallel proceedings initiated under the Central GST Act.
Taking note of the submission, the Supreme Court did not conclusively decide whether that deposit could be adjusted, recognised or treated as sufficient for the appeal arising from the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. Instead, it expressly kept all contentions open, including the issue of pre-deposit.
The direction leaves the taxpayer free to argue before the appropriate forum that the deposit made in the parallel CGST proceedings should be taken into consideration while determining compliance with the pre-deposit requirement in the state GST appeal. Correspondingly, the revenue authorities would also remain entitled to raise their contentions on the legal effect of the earlier deposit.
The order assumes relevance in cases where parallel proceedings or demands arise under the Central and State components of the GST framework and the taxpayer has already deposited an amount in connection with one set of proceedings. Whether such a deposit can satisfy or reduce the pre-deposit obligation in the corresponding appeal may depend on the facts, the nature of the proceedings and the decision of the competent appellate forum.
The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the Section 74 demand or express any opinion on the validity of the December 3, 2025 order. Its protection was confined to extending the time for filing the statutory appeal, preventing a limitation objection if the appeal is filed within that period, and preserving all rival contentions.
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition as well as all pending applications.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
