M/S Salooja Electronics vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a concession was made by the State to allow statutory appeals to be filed within a period of two weeks, a writ petition was disposed of. Following this precedent and in view of a similar concession made by the State in the present case, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative direction was that the petitioner could 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, was to be entertained on its merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the State's stand. The Court also directed that any amount deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement for a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The issue of the merits of the adjudication order itself was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Salooja Electronics, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated September 11, 2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the tax period of June 2024. 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 Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a writ petition was disposed of with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals 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. 2. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, they were unable to file an appeal within the statutory period. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, effectively barring them from availing their statutory remedy. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal available and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.