M/S Geeta Traders vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner avails the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the said appeal shall be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation. This decision was based on a concession made by the State, similar to one made in a previous case (M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.). The Court also directed that any amount already deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make the 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, as the matter was resolved based on the concession and the availability of the statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Geeta Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 17.12.2025, 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 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 Interprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals within two weeks, leading to the disposal of that writ petition.

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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order dated 17.12.2025, which prevented them from availing their statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, rendering them unable to file an appeal at present. Revenue's Argument: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition was not maintainable. The judgment does not record any further specific arguments from the revenue regarding the limitation period or the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge.