M/S Shree Metal Works vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Metal Works, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 06.04.2024, 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 order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum period for condoning delay had expired. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Held

The Court held that in view of the similar concession made by the State in the present case, as observed in the case of M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the writ petition could be disposed of. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court further stipulated that the appeal, if filed within this period, should be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, taking into account the State's stand. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand, which includes tax and penalty. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the statutory remedy of appeal despite the expiry of the limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 06.04.2024, which prevented them from filing their statutory appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had passed, rendering them unable to pursue the appeal through the normal channel. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the Court allowed the filing of appeals beyond the limitation period based on a concession from the State. The revenue, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition was not maintainable. The revenue did not present any further arguments regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay or the validity of the ex parte order.