M/S Dixit Medical Agencies 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 Court directed that if the appeal is filed within this period, it may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation, in light of the concession made by the State. This concession was based on a similar situation in a previous case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State had agreed to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks. The Court also directed that any amount already deposited or recovered against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement for pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Dixit Medical Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Adjudication Order dated 21.04.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 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 the delay had expired. The Court noted a previous similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals within two weeks, and that 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? The petitioner argued that their failure to file an appeal within the statutory period was solely due to their lack of knowledge of the ex parte Adjudication Order dated 21.04.2024. They asserted that this lack of knowledge prevented them from availing their statutory remedy within the prescribed time, and at present, they are disabled from filing an appeal as the maximum period for condoning delay has expired. The petitioner relied on the principle of fairness and the need for an opportunity to be heard. The revenue, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable.