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

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that, subject to the petitioner availing the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the appeal may be entertained on its merits without any objection as to limitation. This decision was based on a similar concession made by the State in a connected matter. The Court also directed that any amount already deposited 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 specific finding on the merits of the adjudication order itself, as the matter was disposed of on the concession regarding limitation.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 01.02.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 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 similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a writ petition was disposed of with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order. (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of limitation provisions and principles of natural justice under the UP GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period. They are now disabled from filing an appeal as the maximum period for condoning delay has expired. 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. The judgment records no further specific argument from the revenue on the limitation aspect, beyond raising the preliminary objection.