Laxmi Traders vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. This decision was based on a concession made by the State, similar to that in a previous case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.). The Court directed that the appeal, if filed within the stipulated two weeks, should be entertained on its own merits without any objection regarding limitation. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of making a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not explicitly decide on the maintainability of the writ petition but rather facilitated the availing of the statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Laxmi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 25.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the tax period of October 2023 to December 2023. 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 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 avail the statutory remedy of appeal despite the expiry of the limitation period, given the ex parte nature of the adjudication order and lack of knowledge? 2. Whether the Court should entertain the writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order, which prevented them from filing an appeal within the statutory time limit. They further contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to this lack of knowledge, and the maximum period for condoning such delay had passed, effectively barring their statutory remedy. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits in similar circumstances. 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. They did not make further arguments on the merits of the case as the Court proceeded based on a concession.