M/S Umer Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Held

The Court, in view of a similar concession made by the State in a prior case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), disposed of the present writ petition. The Court directed that the petitioner may 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, shall be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, keeping in mind the stand taken by the State. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted towards the requirement of 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 Umer Enterprises, 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 tax period April 2021 to March 2022. 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 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 similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the 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 writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under the UP GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, considering the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? The petitioner argued that they were unable to avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, and the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired, preventing them from doing so. The revenue, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum. The Court also considered a previous order in a similar case where the State had made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within a specified period.