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

Held

The Court held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a previous case (M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the present writ petition should also be disposed of. The Court directed that the petitioner may 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, shall be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, considering the stand taken by the State. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand may be adjusted towards the requirement of pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand, including tax and penalty. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ex parte adjudication order itself, deferring the decision to the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Baba Transport Carrier, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 28.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (respondent no. 1) under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2018-19. 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. The Court noted a previous similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises 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 maintain a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, particularly when the limitation period for filing the appeal has expired? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the ex parte adjudication order, which prevented them from availing the statutory appeal remedy within the stipulated time. They further contended that the delay had exceeded the maximum period for condonation, leaving them without recourse. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that a writ petition is not maintainable in the first instance. They did not elaborate on the merits of the adjudication order but focused on the procedural bar.