M/S Sameer Builtaid Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within this period, it may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the stand of the State. The Court also noted that any amount deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not decide the merits of the adjudication orders themselves, as the matter was disposed of based on a concession and the availability of a statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Sameer Builtaid Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging ex parte adjudication orders dated 11.02.2025 and 22.12.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial years 2020-21 and 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 ex parte orders, they could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum delay condonation period 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 file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of ex parte adjudication orders and lack of knowledge. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication orders, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the limitation period. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, disabling them from filing an appeal. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable on this ground.