Shri Baba Transport Carrier vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax And Another

Held

The Court held that in view of the similar concession made by the State in a prior, analogous case (M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the present writ petition should also be disposed of on similar terms. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was instructed to entertain the appeal on its merits without raising any objection as to limitation, considering the stand of the State. Any amount already deposited 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 Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Baba Transport Carrier, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 06.03.2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20. 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 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 they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order, which prevented them from filing an appeal within the statutory time limit. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning delay had passed, rendering them unable to pursue the appeal. The petitioner relied on the principle of fairness and the precedent set in a similar case where the State conceded to allow appeals to be filed beyond the limitation period. 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 maintainable. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of ignorance of the order or the expiry of the limitation period, but rather focused on the existence of the appellate remedy.