The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court ruling that dismissed a taxpayer’s challenge to a GST assessment order after the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued notice on both the special leave petition filed by the assessee and its prayer for a stay. The notice is returnable on December 1, 2026.
The challenge arises from the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench’s judgment. The High Court had declined to interfere with the GST assessment order, holding that extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be invoked merely to overcome the limitation period prescribed for a statutory appeal.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
The Supreme Court heard senior advocate Mahaveer Singh, appearing for the petitioner, and condoned the delay before issuing notice.
The record of proceedings lists an application seeking condonation of delay in refiling or curing defects, along with an application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
The Court directed: “Issue notice, both on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the prayer for stay, returnable on 01.12.2026.”
The order does not grant a stay of the assessment order or recovery proceedings. It also does not decide the merits of the taxpayer’s challenge or overturn the High Court’s judgment.
Background: High Court Rejected Belated Challenge to GST Assessment
The proceedings originated from a challenge to a GST assessment order dated June 4, 2025.
Before the High Court, the taxpayer contended that the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and sought the setting aside of the impugned notice and assessment order. It also requested protection against coercive recovery arising from the assessment.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the petitioner had not demonstrated a jurisdictional defect or denial of a fair hearing sufficient to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The High Court noted that the taxpayer had filed a reply to the show cause notice and participated in the personal hearing before the assessment order was passed. On that basis, it found no apparent violation of the principles of natural justice.
Delay in Approaching the High Court
The delay in challenging the assessment order was a central consideration in the High Court’s decision.
The assessment order was passed on June 4, 2025, while the writ petition was brought nearly a year later. The taxpayer had also approached the High Court in January 2026 but withdrew that petition with liberty to file a fresh petition containing better particulars.
The High Court considered the subsequent challenge an attempt to use writ proceedings as a substitute for the statutory appellate process after allowing the appeal deadline to expire.
It held that the circumstances did not bring the case within the exceptional categories in which a writ petition may be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Statutory Appeal Period Under Section 107
The High Court referred to the appellate framework under Section 107 of the GST Act, which provides a taxpayer three months from communication of the order to file an appeal. A further period of one month may be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Singh Enterprises v. CCE and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd., the High Court reiterated that statutory appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by the governing legislation.
Its reasoning was that entertaining a belated challenge through writ jurisdiction, without an established exceptional ground, would undermine the limitation framework prescribed for GST disputes.
Objections to Section 74 Proceedings
The taxpayer also raised objections concerning deficiencies in the show cause notice and assessment order under Section 74 of the GST Act.
The High Court held that these grounds could have been pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism within the prescribed period. Their existence did not, in the circumstances of the case, justify converting the writ petition into an appeal after expiry of the statutory deadline.
The bench also relied on its earlier decision in Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India, concerning the maintainability of writ petitions after statutory appeal periods have expired.
That decision emphasised that the exercise of writ jurisdiction should not render statutory limitation provisions ineffective where a special enactment provides an appellate framework.
The High Court dismissed the petition after finding no gross violation of natural justice or patent illegality warranting extraordinary interference. It nevertheless clarified that the taxpayer could pursue any remedy available in law and that its observations should not prejudice future proceedings before the appellate forum.
The Supreme Court has now sought a response on the challenge to that dismissal, as well as on the request for interim protection.
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.
