M/S Chaudhary Constructions vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of based on a concession made by the State, similar to the decision in M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file their statutory appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The appeal, if filed within this timeframe, is to be entertained on its own merits without any objection being raised by the revenue regarding limitation. The Court also noted that any amount already deposited or recovered 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 explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chaudhary Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 22.02.2025, 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 they were unaware of the adjudication order and therefore could not file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period, and the maximum period for condoning the 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 with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks.

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 the case? The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, they were unable to file their statutory appeal within the stipulated time. They further submitted that the maximum period for condoning the delay had passed, rendering them disabled from filing the appeal. The petitioner relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits when there are sufficient grounds for delay. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed procedure. However, in light of a similar concession made in a previous case, the revenue's stance evolved to permit the petitioner to file the appeal.