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

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation 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, taking into consideration the stand of the State. 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 or the specific grounds for challenging it, relying on a concession made by the State in a similar case. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances where a party is genuinely prevented from availing statutory remedies due to lack of knowledge, and the State concedes to allow such appeals, the High Court may direct the appellate authority to entertain the appeal beyond limitation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shivam Tiles House, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Adjudication Order dated 11.12.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-2020. 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 delay condonation period had expired. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a concession was made by the State to allow statutory appeals 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? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte Adjudication Order dated 11.12.2024, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, disabling them from filing an appeal. Revenue's argument: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition was not maintainable. No specific argument was recorded regarding the petitioner's plea for condonation of delay or the merits of the adjudication order.