M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner could not avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of an ex parte adjudication order and the limitation period had expired, the State had made a concession to allow such appeals to be filed. 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 own merits without any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the State's stand. 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 decide the merits of the adjudication order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aaradhyam Infrabuilders Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 17.02.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2020-21. 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 the delay had expired. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals within two weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte order? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 17.02.2025, which prevented them from filing their statutory appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them unable to avail the appellate remedy. The petitioner relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits when there is a genuine lack of knowledge and the delay is not attributable to their fault. The revenue, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The revenue's argument was based on the general principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy is available. The revenue did not make any specific arguments regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay, other than pointing to the existence of the statutory appeal mechanism.