HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Due to Lack of Explanation on Delay; Grants Liberty to Seek Other Remedies:

HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Due to Lack of Explanation on Delay; Grants Liberty to Seek Other Remedies The Allahabad High Court has delivered its judgement dated February 27, 2026, in a case titled Pappu Traders Vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy Revenue Deptt. Lko. And two others. The case was heard by Justice Jaspreet Singh in Writ Tax No. 347 of 2026. The writ petition was filed by a company, Pappu Traders, in the Allahabad High Court against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others, challenging an order dated September 03, 2024. During the hearing of the case before the Honourable Justice Jaspreet Singh, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State challenged the maintainability of the writ petition. He stated the order that is being challenged was issued on September 03, 2024; however, the petitioner has properly explained the reason behind the delay in filing the petition. He further flagged the point that the statements made in the writ petition are different from the statements made earlier in the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner.

Also Read

GSTAT Now Operational: Allahabad HC Directs Taxpayer to File Appeal Before by June 30

It was further highlighted that the certified copy of the order was not provided to the petitioner by the company's accountant. However, records indicate that the petitioner had already filed an appeal through a lawyer and had even sought adjournments on two occasions. These facts were not mentioned or explained in the writ petition. When the court asked for an explanation, the petitioner could serve any points explaining the same. Apart from a brief explanation in paragraph 12 of the petition, the petitioner failed to give detailed clarification regarding the delay or the earlier proceedings in the appeal.

Also Read

GST Dept Conducts Search Operation at Registered Office of GK Energy; Disallows ITC on IPO Expenses and Other Claims

Considering the same, the High Court denied entertaining the writ petition and dismissed it. However, the court clarified that it had not examined the case on its merits, and the petitioner has been given liberty to seek other remedies available under the law.