RERA| Brochure Clause Allowing 20% Deduction On Refund Without Interest Is Unfair: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a clause in a development authority's brochure permitting it to deduct 20% of the registration amount and return the balance without interest where an allottee withdraws after allotment is a one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable term of the contract. It held that the Lucknow Development Authority was not entitled to the benefit of such a clause. Clause 8.2 of the brochure of the Lucknow Development Authority provided that...

GST Circular Requiring Physical Service Of Notices After Registration Cancellation Is 'Founded On Sound Common Sense': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an ex parte adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 where the show-cause notice had been served on the dealer only through the Common Portal, almost five years after his registration had already been cancelled. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. had, by Circular dated May 07, 2025, issued binding instructions to subordinate authorities to serve physical notice on noticees facing adjudication...

GST | Refusal Of Cross-Examination For A Wrong Reason Does Not Mean It Had To Be Granted: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that GST authorities cannot automatically be required to allow cross-examination merely because the reason given for denying such a request is legally unsustainable. The need for cross-examination must be assessed on the facts of each case. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held “While we accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the reasoning offered by the adjudicating authority to...

Allahabad High Court Refuses To Reopen Deemed Dealer Status Of Railway Container Contractors

The Allahabad High Court has refused to reconsider its earlier finding that railway container contractors were deemed dealers under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the finding had attained finality and could not be challenged before a coordinate bench without being assailed before a higher forum.Section 2(h)(ix) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, treats railway container contractors as dealers if they fail to disclose the consignors' or...

Commercial Court Must Decide Jurisdiction Before 'Sarkari Result' Trademark Suit Amendment: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Commercial Court must decide a challenge to its subject-matter jurisdiction before considering an application to amend the plaint. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed a petition filed by I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd., which owns the “Sarkari Result” trademark, challenging the Varanasi Commercial Court's decision to hear a jurisdiction application filed by Anugya Gupta and another before taking up the company's amendment plea. “An amendment seeking to...

No Limitation To Claim Delay Interest Where Allottee Continues With Project: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 23 September held that an allottee who continues with a real estate project can claim interest for every month of delay in possession, as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 prescribes no limitation for raising such a claim. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed Antriksh Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's direction to pay delay interest, holding that the expression “demand” in the...

Mere Excise Registration Lapse Not Wilful Suppression If Dept. Knew About Unit: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 25 September held that the extended five-year limitation period under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked merely because a manufacturer failed to register or produce declarations, where the department already knew about his manufacturing unit and the goods manufactured there. Justice Irshad Ali quashed the demand of Rs.6,27,086/- in Additional Excise Duty and the equivalent penalty imposed on Siraj Ahmad, proprietor of...

UPVAT| Joint Commissioner Can't Revise Order Without Commissioner's Authorisation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 11 September held that the Joint Commissioner (Executive) cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 without an order of authorisation by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Proceedings initiated by an unauthorised officer are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed Sai Baba Ent Bhatta's revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, holding that there was nothing on record to show...

No Intra-Court Appeal Against Single Judge Order In Arbitration Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that an intra-court appeal (special appeal) under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that the Act is a complete code that permits appeals only against the orders listed in Section 37, and an order under Section 36 is not one of...

GST Authority Cannot Pass Fresh Ex-Parte Order After Ignoring Replies: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 must recall an order if it finds that it failed to consider the replies filed against the proceedings and hear the person afresh. It cannot consider those replies itself and pass a fresh ex-parte order on merits while exercising the rectification power under Section 161 of the Act. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi set aside an order passed against Wonder...

'Abominable': Allahabad High Court Pulls Up SBI For Debiting Wife's FD For Husband's Loan

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has pulled up the State Bank of India for debiting ₹19.90 lakh from a woman's fixed deposit towards her deceased husband's loan dues, calling the process “abominable” and “clearly an anathema to banking practice”.A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that SBI had failed to show any legal basis for debiting the account of Neha Mishra, who had no privity of contract with the bank, towards her husband's dues.Mishra's husband,...

Borrower Can Directly Challenge Recovery Officer's Auction Sale Confirmation Before DRT: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a borrower can directly challenge an order of the Recovery Officer confirming an auction sale before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court clarified that the borrower need not first approach the Recovery Officer under Rule 60 or Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. It also held that the borrower is not required to make the deposits...