M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/U.P. Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST/SGST) in ARN No.AD0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CommercialTax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.3) passed under Section 74 (9) of the C.G.S.T./S.G.S.T. Operative disposition: Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to…
Result: Allowed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(11); GST statutory provision - Section 112
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/U.P. Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST/SGST) in ARN No.AD0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CommercialTax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.3) passed under Section 74 (9) of the C.G.S.T./S.G.S.T. Operative disposition: Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to…
- 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
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/U.P. Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST/SGST) in ARN No.AD0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CommercialTax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.3) passed under Section 74 (9) of the C.G.S.T./S.G.S.T.
4. On 20.05.2020, the opposite party no.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. issued a show-cause notice under Section 61 of the CGST/SGST in the FORM of GST, ASMT-10 by means of which, demand of GST on a total receipt of amount of Rs.1,10,67,891/- (One Crore Ten Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety One Rupees) was made.
6. The case of the petitioner is that due to the outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic in the year 2020-21, the office of Auditor/Staff of the petitioner's firm was not working in routine manner and on account of this reason, the petitioner could not receive the said notice nor did he reply to it. However, in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the opposite party no.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda) under Section 74 (9) of the CGST/SGST Act passed an ex-parte order dated 14.07.2021 whereby set apart the tax already deposited by the petitioner through FORM GSTR-3B and demanded a fresh 18% GST on the total receipt amount of Rs.1,10,67,891/- (One Crore Ten Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety One Rupees) along with the interest and penalty. The petitioner, on 19.07.2022, preferred an appeal under Section 107 (1) of the CGST/SGST Act against the order dated 14.07.2021 but the opposite party no.2 (Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P.) dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 26.12.2022 on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner for justification to the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal has submitted that the petitioner fell seriously ill for which he was continuously under medical treatment from 05.02.2021 to 19.07.2022 for his acute illness, namely Pott's Spine (Spinal Tuberculosis). He has also annexed the photocopy of the medical/fitness certificate dated 19.07.2022 issued by the District T.B. and Chest Centre, District Hospital Campus, Gonda as Annexure No.5 to the present writ petition. He further submits that immediately after recovery, on 19.07.2022, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST/SGST Act challenging the order dated 14.07.2021 but the opposite party no.2 (Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P.) without taking into consideration the bona fide delay in filing the appeal has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.12.2022.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inability on the part of the petitioner to prefer the aforesaid appeal within the prescribed period was due to some bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for delay.
Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions
1. Heard Shri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Har Govind Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a proprietor engaged in the business of supplying interlocking bricks, cement and construction materials and is registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Authorities in the State of U.P.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said total amount received by the petitioner's firm includes taxable amount and GST which has already been deposited through FORM GSTR-3B.
10. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments and orders:
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
14. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to consider and adjudicate upon the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without raising any objection on the limitation, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It is however, provided that if in the event, such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits and shall be dealt with perfectly in accordance with law.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION
Full judgment text verified from the issuing court's official e-AHCR database and packaged as a sanitized readable rendition; it is not represented as the court's original-layout PDF. Open issuing-court source.
Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING
No later-treatment determination is claimed; review, appeal, SLP and subsequent-treatment checks remain open as stated.
Release decision: Published as index,follow with source format and later-history limitations disclosed. Closure register checked 2026-08-11; source-format and later-treatment checks remain visible controls, not hidden assumptions.
Ratio and legal principle
The narrow proposition associated with M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the additional commissioner, grade-2 (appeal), state tax, gonda, u.p. (opposite party no.2) under section 107(11) of the central goods and services tax/u.p. goods and services tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the cgst/sgst) in arn no.ad0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the deputy commissioner, commercialtax/gst, khand-4, gonda, u.p. (opposite party no.3) passed under section 74 (9) of the c.g.s.t./s.g.s.t. operative disposition: considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to… 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. 151 of 2023.
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 “Allowed / set aside” 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: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/U.P. Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST/SGST) in ARN No.AD0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CommercialTax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.3) passed under Section 74 (9) of the C.G.S.T./S.G.S.T. Operative disposition: Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(11); GST statutory provision - Section 112—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 61; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(11); GST statutory provision - Section 112 and the decision date 2023-06-19; 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.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Full judgment text verified from the issuing court's official e-AHCR database and packaged as a sanitized readable rendition; it is not represented as the court's original-layout PDF. |
| Later history | REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY · index,follow |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment’s narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The dispute raises the same issue described above.
- The same statutory provisions and materially similar version apply.
- The procedural stage, burden of proof and challenged action are comparable.
- The documentary record answers the same evidentiary questions considered by the forum.
Weaker or distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes, limits or explains the position.
- The statutory period, jurisdiction or procedural route differs.
- The evidence or chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured, waived or absent in the user’s case.
Detailed reliance and distinction analysis
Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 151 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-06-19. 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 Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,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 61; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(11); GST statutory provision - Section 112. 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 Allowed / set aside. 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.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in M/S Santosh Traders Thru. Proprietor Santosh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Lko. And 2 Others?
Issue and context: The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.2) under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/U.P. Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST/SGST) in ARN No.AD0907220271457/2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CommercialTax/GST, Khand-4, Gonda, U.P. (Opposite Party No.3) passed under Section 74 (9) of the C.G.S.T./S.G.S.T. Operative disposition: Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decisions cited, the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority (opposite party no.1) with a direction to…
Which forum and case number decided it?
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) decided WRIT TAX No. 151 of 2023 on 2023-06-19.
Who constituted the coram?
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J..
What result is recorded?
Allowed / set aside. Read the operative paragraphs above and the full packaged record for the precise relief.
Which provisions should be checked?
GST statutory provision - Section 61; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 107(1); GST statutory provision - Section 107(11); GST statutory provision - Section 112. Verify the version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the same core issue, statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence are present.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, relief sought, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate, review, SLP and later-treatment history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- GST statutory provision - Section 61 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- GST statutory provision - Section 107(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- GST statutory provision - Section 107(11) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
- GST statutory provision - Section 112 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
- M/S EVES FASHION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
- M/S CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION CO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
- M/S JASMEET TRADING COMPANY v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
- ADITYA MADAAN v. COMMISSIONER CGST GST COMMISSIONERATE DELHI & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
Related Finin2min resources
- Case Law Hub
- Search all 792 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
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.