Shalini Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a connected matter (M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the present writ petition could also be disposed of. The Court directed that the petitioner may 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 merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the stand of the State. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand should 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 principle but granted relief based on the State's concession.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated April 25, 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 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 similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, leading to the disposal of that writ petition.

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 contention: 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 sought intervention through the writ petition as they were disabled from filing an appeal. The petitioner relied on the principle of allowing appeals in similar circumstances where a concession was made by the State. Revenue's contention: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable. No specific provision or precedent was cited by the revenue in the judgment.