M/S J.T. Security Systems And Integrations Private Limited 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. The Court directed that the appeal, if filed within this period, should be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation. This decision was based on a concession made by the State, similar to one made in a previous case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises 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 Court also noted that any amount already deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement for pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The Court did not delve into the merits of the adjudication order itself, focusing instead on facilitating the petitioner's access to the appellate process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S J.T. Security Systems And Integrations Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte adjudication order dated December 30, 2023, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18. 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 period for condoning the delay had expired. The petitioner cited a previous High Court order in a similar case where the State had conceded 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 adjudication order? 2. Whether the High Court can direct the appellate authority to entertain a delayed appeal on its merits, despite the expiry of the maximum period for condoning delay? The petitioner argued that due to lack of knowledge of the adjudication order, they were prevented from filing a timely appeal and that the statutory remedy was rendered unavailable. They relied on the principle that a party should not be deprived of their remedy due to circumstances beyond their control. The revenue, through its preliminary objection, contended that the statutory remedy of appeal was available and that the petitioner had failed to avail it within the stipulated time, implying that the High Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy exists. The revenue's stance in the cited precedent suggests a concession to allow delayed appeals in similar situations.