M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. This was subject to the condition that the appeal would be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, in light of the concession made by the State. The Court noted that any amount already deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement of making 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 primary issue addressed was the petitioner's access to the statutory appellate process. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where a party is genuinely prevented from availing a statutory remedy due to circumstances beyond their control, and the State concedes to allow such a remedy, the High Court may permit the filing of an appeal beyond the normal limitation period to ensure fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dixit Medical Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 26.12.2025, 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 ex parte order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum delay condonation period had expired. The Court referred to a previous order in a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed 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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they were unable to file an appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order dated 26.12.2025. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, effectively barring them from availing their statutory remedy. They relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Argument: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal available, implying that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge or the possibility of condoning delay, but rather focused on the existence of the appellate mechanism.