M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a prior case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; 2026:AHC:190551-DB), where the State agreed to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, the present writ petition could also be disposed of on similar terms. 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 deposited or recovered against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement for pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The Court did not decide the merits of the adjudication order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivam Tiles House, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Adjudication Order dated 26.03.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 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 Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the statutory remedy of appeal despite the expiry of the limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte Adjudication Order? 2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte Adjudication Order dated 26.03.2025, they were unable to file an appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, rendering them disabled from filing an appeal. The revenue's primary contention was that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, and therefore, a writ petition was not maintainable. The judgment does not record any specific reliance on particular circulars or precedents by either side, other than referencing a prior High Court order in a similar case.