Pace Tel Systems PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 was available to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had been provided with an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed, making the appellate route the appropriate course of action. However, acknowledging the petitioner's submission that the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired, the Court provided a specific direction. It held that if the petitioner files the appeal along with a certified copy of the present order within three weeks from the date of the order, the appeal shall be entertained without any objection regarding the limitation period. The Court clarified that this concession did not waive any other statutory pre-conditions for maintaining the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 15.07.2021, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Court noted that an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The Court also observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired during the preparation and filing of the present writ petition and a previous writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 is available to the petitioner? 2. Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 should be entertained despite the expiry of the limitation period, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST/CGST Act, 2017 had expired during the pendency and preparation of the present writ petition and a previous writ petition filed before the Court. This implies an argument for condonation of delay or entertainment of the appeal beyond the prescribed period. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the issue of limitation. The Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy suggests that the revenue likely relied on the statutory provision for appeal.