M/S Prizm INDIA Enterprises 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, which was similar to the stand taken in the case of M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises. The Court also directed 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, focusing instead on facilitating the petitioner's access to the statutory appellate process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prizm India Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2025, 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 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 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 they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 18.12.2025, which prevented them from filing their statutory appeal within the stipulated time. Consequently, the period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them unable to pursue the appeal. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in a similar case where the Court allowed appeals to be filed within a specified period due to a concession from the State. The revenue, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable.