M/S Veer Garments vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court stipulated that if the appeal is filed within this period, it should be entertained on its merits without any objection as to limitation, taking into account the stand of the State. The Court also directed that any amount already deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement for a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court's decision was based on a concession made by the State, similar to a previous case, and no further adjudication on the merits of the case was required.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Veer Garments, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 09.02.2023 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 ex parte 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 previous similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the 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 file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of the case? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 107 of the UP GST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: 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. They further contended that they are now disabled from filing an appeal as the maximum period for condoning delay has expired. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the petitioner should pursue that remedy rather than a writ petition.