M/S Keshari Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Keshari Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated April 10, 2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum delay condonation period had expired. The court noted a previous order in a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Following a concession made by the State in a similar case, the Court directed that the petitioner's appeal may be entertained on its own merits within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, without any objection regarding limitation. The Court also noted that any amount already deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement of a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not decide on the merits of the ex parte adjudication order itself, as the matter was resolved based on the concession and the opportunity to file an appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge an ex parte adjudication order through a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, particularly when the limitation period for appeal has expired? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that they were prevented from filing a statutory appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order. They contended that the expiry of the maximum delay condonation period disabled them from availing the statutory remedy. The revenue's primary contention was that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, and therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable. The revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the ex parte order itself but focused on the procedural bar of the writ petition.