M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court allowed the present writ petition. Following the reasoning adopted in a connected case, Writ Tax No. 1712 of 2018, the Court found that the petitioner's case warranted similar consideration. The judgment indicates that the dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of being beyond time was set aside or overlooked in favor of addressing the substantive merits of the case, as per the precedent established in the companion writ petition. The operative direction was to allow the writ petition on the same terms and conditions as the aforementioned decided case, implying that the petitioner would be granted relief, likely by permitting them to pursue their first appeal on merits or by quashing the impugned assessment order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The specific reasoning for setting aside the dismissal of the appeal is not detailed but is linked to the identical facts of the other case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Shailendra Eat Udyog, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.06.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Sector-6, Mathura. This order assessed the petitioner to tax for the month of March 2018 under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act, 2018. The petitioner had previously filed a first appeal against this assessment order, but it was dismissed as being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The present writ petition is stated to be identical in facts to another case, Writ Tax No. 1712 of 2018, which was decided by a separate order on the same date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the first appeal as being beyond time was justified, thereby precluding the petitioner from availing statutory remedies under the U.P. GST Act, 2018? The petitioner argued that the dismissal of their first appeal on technical grounds of limitation prevented them from addressing the merits of the assessment order. They contended that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should consider the substantive issues rather than allowing the matter to be decided solely on procedural technicalities, especially when the facts are identical to a previously decided case. The petitioner relied on the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. The respondents, represented by the State, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment provided, but their stance would be to uphold the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority.