M/S Bharat Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 28.11.2023, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18. 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 adjudication 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 previous similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the High Court had disposed of a writ petition with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks.

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner is disabled from filing a statutory appeal due to reasons beyond their control and the State makes a concession, the High Court can entertain a writ petition. The Court relied on a previous order in M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. In the present case, the Court found the facts to be similar and, in view of a concession made by the State, disposed of the writ petition. The operative direction was that the petitioner could avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The appeal, if filed within this period, was to be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the State's stand. Any amount deposited against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 unable to avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, which resulted in the expiry of the limitation period. They contended that the delay was not willful and that they were disabled from filing the appeal. The revenue, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal and should pursue that route. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay or the validity of the ex parte order itself.