M/S Richa Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Challenge has been raised to the adjudication orders dated 29.12.2023 for the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 23.12.2023 for F.Y. 2019- 2020 respectively. Both orders were passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UPGST/ CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Operative disposition: claimed is declined. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner files such appeal, the same may be dealt with on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made in this
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the revenue as to availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

4. In face of such statutory alternative remedy of appeal available in the context of a dispute which has arisen, we are not impressed by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bar of alternative remedy may be lifted as the present case involves a challenge raised to an ex-parte order which is not speaking.

5. We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The grounds of challenge raised that the impugned orders are ex-parte and non-speaking; have been passed pursuant to notice uploaded under wrong heading; have been passed without issuance of due intimation under Section 73 (5) of the Act, may remain to be raised and decided on their own merits in the appropriate appeal proceedings.

6. The decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others, 2008 U.P.T.C. 875 also does not persuade us to lift the bar of alternative remedy at the first stage of appeal itself. Undoubtedly, all pleas being raised by the petitioner are such as may be raised before the appellate authority as well.

claimed is declined. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner files such appeal, the same may be dealt with on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Richa Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another concerns issue and context: challenge has been raised to the adjudication orders dated 29.12.2023 for the f.y. 2017-2018 and 23.12.2023 for f.y. 2019- 2020 respectively. both orders were passed by the respondent no. 2 under section 73 of the upgst/ cgst act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the act). operative disposition: claimed is declined. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. we, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner files such appeal, the same may be dealt with on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made in this The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 146 of 2024.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: Challenge has been raised to the adjudication orders dated 29.12.2023 for the F.Y. 2017-2018 and 23.12.2023 for F.Y. 2019- 2020 respectively. Both orders were passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UPGST/ CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Operative disposition: claimed is declined. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We, however, clarify that in the event the petitioner files such appeal, the same may be dealt with on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observation made in this Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107 and the decision date 2024-02-12; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Richa Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 146 of 2024, and the decision is dated 2024-02-12. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.; Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 107. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• VSA TRADING PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s R. Gupta Metal Store through Proprietor Mahesh Chand Gupta v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi North — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 892 judgments
• Explore Appeals & Limitation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY