TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Extraordinary jurisdiction declined under Article 226 over Section 22 GST penalty; Section 161 rectification and statutory appeal available</h1> <h3>Kartik Enterprises Versus State Of U.P And Another</h3> HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 against a penalty order under Section 22 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, noting the ... Penalty order passed under Section 22 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - availability of remedy of appeal - remedy of rectification u/s 161 of the said Act - HELD THAT:- As a fact though the petitioner has yet not filed the statutory appeal, in view of the language of Section 22(1) and in the context of the penalty order that has been passed, the petitioner contends that the penalty imposed equivalent to 100% of the disputed ITC is excessive - With respect to that grievance his rectification application filed on 02.04.2025 is still pending. Keeping in mind the remedy availed and the pendency of the rectification application thus filed, there are no good ground to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. However, it is provided, the rectification application may be dealt with and decided necessarily on or before 30 November 2025 after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the manner provided. Petition disposed off. Petition under Article 226 challenges a penalty order under Section 22 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (penalty equal to 100% of disputed ITC). Petitioner has not yet filed the statutory appeal but has filed a rectification application under Section 161 (filed 02.04.2025), which remains pending and is pleaded in the writ. Court notes the availability of the statutory remedy of rectification and that, in view of that remedy and the pendency of the rectification application, it 'do[es] not find any good ground to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.' Interference under Article 226 is declined, leaving the petitioner free to pursue statutory remedies. The rectification application is directed to be 'dealt with and decided necessarily on or before 30 November 2025 after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.' Petition disposed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
