M/S Bharat Iron Scrap 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 Court stipulated that if the appeal is filed within this period, it should be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, taking into consideration the stand of the State. The Court also directed that any amount already deposited or recovered against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make 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 a concession and the availability of a procedural remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Iron Scrap, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 28.03.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22. 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 Interprises 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 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 a statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 28.03.2025, which prevented them from availing their statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the period for condoning the delay had expired, effectively barring them from filing an appeal. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits, especially when the delay is due to circumstances beyond their control. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue's primary contention was that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. They argued that the petitioner should have availed this remedy within the prescribed time limits.