Pace Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a petitioner could not file a statutory appeal within the limitation period due to lack of knowledge of an ex parte adjudication order, and the State made a fair concession to allow such appeals to be filed, the writ petition could be disposed of by permitting the appeal to be filed within a specified period. The Court reasoned that this approach aligns with the concession made by the State in a similar case. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to file their statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. This appeal is to be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the stand of the State. Any amount deposited or recovered against the disputed demand is to be adjusted against the requirement for pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pace Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 25.05.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, pertaining to the tax period of August 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 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 State made a concession to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

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 due to their lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order dated 25.05.2024, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They further submitted that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, rendering them unable to file an appeal. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals to be heard on merits when there is a genuine lack of knowledge. 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 present further arguments on the merits of the case.