Govinda Infrastructures Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction 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, shall be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, in view of the concession made by the State. 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 delve into the merits of the adjudication order itself, as the matter was resolved based on the concession and the procedural aspect of filing the appeal. The primary reasoning was to allow the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy, mirroring a previous order in a similar case.

Facts

The petitioner, Govinda Infrastructures Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 22.02.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2020-21. 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 delay condonation period 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 with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? 2. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unable to file an appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order dated 22.02.2025. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them disabled from availing the statutory remedy. They relied on the concession made by the State in a similar case. 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. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.