M/S Sat Guru Kripa Agency vs. State Of Up And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sat Guru Kripa Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated 11.11.2025, passed by respondent no. 2, which cancelled its registration under the UP GST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that it was unaware of the order and therefore could not file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The maximum period for condoning the delay had expired. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State conceded to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner avails the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the said appeal shall be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation. This decision was based on a concession made by the State, similar to one made in a prior case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.). The Court noted that any amount deposited by the petitioner against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not make any further adjudication on the merits of the cancellation order itself, leaving it to be decided by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the ex parte order cancelling its GST registration by way of a writ petition, despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under the UP GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a statutory appeal beyond the period of limitation, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the impugned order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte order dated 11.11.2025, it was unable to avail its statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period. The petitioner is now disabled from filing an appeal as the maximum period for condoning the delay has expired. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable.