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

Held

The Court held that in similar circumstances, where a concession was made by the State, a writ petition was disposed of by allowing statutory appeals to be filed within a period of two weeks. 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. This appeal would 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 would be adjusted against the requirement for pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. 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 29.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, pertaining to the tax period of 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, disabling them from filing an appeal. The Court noted a similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Interprises 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 circumstances of lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order? 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 due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order dated 29.07.2024, they were unable to file their statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, rendering them unable to file an appeal. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals in similar circumstances where a concession was made by the State. 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. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.