High Court of Allahabad13 August 2026

Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P

For assesseeRemanded

WRIT TAX NO. 3203 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where Adjudicating Authority, after passing ex parte order without considering assessee's replies, issued a rectification order without notice and sustained demand, such rectification was impermissible since it was not for an error apparent but involved merit review, denial of hearing vitiated proceedings, thus only permissible course was recall of earlier order and fresh decision after hearing

Provisions considered

Section 161, read with section 169, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Uttarakhand High Court9 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

Where assessee filed rectification application within time under Section 161 read with Notification 22/2024-CT, treating three-month timeline for disposal as mandatory was incorrect since such period is directory, hence expiry does not render authority functus officio and rejection as time-barred despite timely application was unsustainable and matter is to be decided on merits

CGST S.161

Calcutta High Court24 Sept 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

Where tax, interest and penalty demands were raised via SCN and order uploaded only on portal without direct intimation and reply was filed but no personal hearing was afforded before passing ex parte order, principles of natural justice were breached, requiring the adjudication to be quashed and matter reconsidered after granting effective hearing

Delhi High Court21 Sept 2026

For assessee

H.K. Impex v. Commissioner of DGST

Where tax demand order was merely uploaded on GST Common Portal without separate service or acknowledgement, such upload alone did not amount to valid service and did not trigger limitation for appeal, thus petitioner was permitted to file statutory appeal within four weeks and appeal could not be rejected as time-barred on basis of portal upload

Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

Arup Datta v. State of West Bengal

H.K. Impex v. Commissioner of DGST