M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner could not avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of an ex parte Adjudication Order and the limitation period had expired, the State had made a fair concession to allow such appeals to be filed within a specified period. Following this precedent and in view of a similar concession made in the present case, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative direction was that the petitioner could avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The said appeal was to be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the stand of the State. Any amount deposited or recovered against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement to make a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aaradhyam Infrabuilders Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Adjudication Order dated 16.12.2025, 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 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 Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the writ petition was disposed of by allowing statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, based on a concession from the State.

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 despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal? The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte Adjudication Order dated 16.12.2025, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them disabled from filing an appeal. The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay.