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 29.04.2024, 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 a 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 held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a connected matter (M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the present writ petition could also be disposed of. The Court directed 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, should be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the stand of the State. 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 explicitly decide on the maintainability of the writ petition in the absence of the concession.

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) Petitioner's argument: 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 are now disabled from filing an appeal. Revenue's argument: The revenue contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, and therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable. They did not explicitly address the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge or the expired limitation period in the provided text, other than raising the preliminary objection.