Shri Baba Transport Carrier vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that in view of a concession made by the State, similar to that in the case of M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the writ petition could be disposed of. 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 appeal, if filed within this period, was to be entertained on its own merits without any objection regarding limitation, considering the State's stand. 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 express any opinion on the merits of the adjudication order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Baba Transport Carrier, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated December 25, 2025, 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 similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter 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 avail the statutory remedy of appeal despite the expiry of the limitation period, given the circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available? The petitioner argued that they were unable to file an appeal within the limitation period due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order and that the maximum period for condoning delay had expired, effectively disabling them from pursuing the statutory remedy. The revenue's primary contention was that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner relied on the precedent set in M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where a similar concession from the State led to the disposal of the writ petition.