M/S Anil Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner could not avail their statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of the Adjudication Order and the limitation period had expired, the State had made a concession to allow such appeals to be filed. Following this precedent and in view of a similar concession made by the State in the present case, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative direction was that the petitioner could 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, was to be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the State's stand. Any amount deposited or recovered against the disputed demand was to be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The issue of limitation was effectively addressed by allowing the appeal to be filed and considered on merits.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Adjudication Order dated 07.02.2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2020-21. 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 Prises 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 is entitled to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, given the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the Adjudication Order? The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the Adjudication Order dated 07.02.2025, which prevented them from filing a statutory appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them unable to avail their statutory remedy. The petitioner relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits when there is a genuine lack of knowledge and the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond their control. The revenue contended that a statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner and that the writ petition was not maintainable. They argued that the petitioner had failed to adhere to the procedural requirements and timelines stipulated by the Act.