M/S Sansar Printing Press vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a connected matter (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the present writ petition could also be disposed of. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to 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, should be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the stand taken by the State. The Court also noted that any amount deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement for a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sansar Printing Press, 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 adjudication order, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum period for condoning delay had expired. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a 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 can be permitted 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 principles applied in the case of M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. are applicable to the present case? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order, which prevented them from filing an appeal within the statutory time limit. They further contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not willful and that they should be allowed to pursue their statutory remedy. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal. They did not explicitly argue against the condonation of delay but relied on the existence of the statutory appeal mechanism.