Case Details: Vyas Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (2026) 39 Centax 325 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vikas Budhwar, J.
- Shri Shubham Agrawal, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
A notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, alleging that excess ITC had been claimed in Form GSTR-3B as compared with the details reflected in Form GSTR-2A. The petitioner submitted a response to the notice contesting the discrepancy pointed out by the department. Thereafter, an order was passed under section 73, creating tax and penalty liability against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application seeking rectification under section 161, which was rejected by the jurisdictional authority. Following the rejection of the rectification application, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 107 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The matter was accordingly placed before the Allahabad High Court.
High Court Held
The Allahabad High Court held that the issue involved was no longer res integra in view of the decision in Prakash Medical Stores [(2026) 38 Centax 190 (All.)], wherein it was clarified that the filing of a rectification application keeps the limitation period for filing an appeal in abeyance until such application is decided. The Court observed that where an application seeking rectification is filed before expiry of the prescribed appeal period, the running of limitation stands suspended from the date of filing of such application till the date of its disposal. Applying the said principle, the Court held that the appeal filed by the petitioner could not be treated as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits after treating it as filed within the period of limitation.
List of Cases Cited
- Prakash Medical Stores v. Union of India — (2026) 38 Centax 190 (All.) — Followed [Paras 9, 13]
- Sawarlal Agarwal v. State of U.P. — Writ Tax No. 240 of 2025, decided on 15-4-2025 — Referred [Paras 6, 10, 14]
