M/S Rahul Construction vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Rahul Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte Adjudication Order dated 23.03.2026, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-2020. The State 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, Maa Gayatri Inter Prises vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, where the writ petition was disposed of by allowing statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, based on a concession from the State.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, noting a concession made by the State in a similar case. The Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to 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 raising any objection as to limitation. The Court also directed that 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 of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not delve into the merits of the adjudication order itself, focusing on procedural fairness and allowing the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge an ex-parte Adjudication Order dated 23.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, through a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unable to avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to a lack of knowledge of the impugned order, and the period for condoning delay had expired, rendering the statutory remedy unavailable. They relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional circumstances where statutory remedies are rendered infructuous. Revenue's contention: The State contended that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. They relied on the general principle that alternative statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction.