M/S 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. The Court directed that if the petitioner files the appeal within this period, it should be entertained on its own merits without any objection being raised 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 Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.). The Court also noted that any amount deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement for a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ex parte adjudication order itself, as the primary issue was the procedural aspect of filing the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 15.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, concerning the tax period July 2023 to September 2023. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that due to lack of knowledge of the adjudication 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 Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, leading to the disposal of that writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? 2. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unable to file their statutory appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, effectively disabling them from pursuing the statutory remedy. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits when there are sufficient grounds for delay. 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 elaborate further on their arguments in the provided text.