M/S Vinamra Caonstruction Company vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that in view of a similar concession made by the State in a connected matter (M/s Maa Gayatri Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), the writ petition could be disposed of. The Court directed that subject to the petitioner availing the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, the appeal may be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation. Any amount already deposited against the disputed demand could be adjusted against the requirement of making a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand of tax, penalty, etc. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the concession.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinamra Construction Company, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated December 17, 2025, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2021-22. 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 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? 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. They are now disabled from filing an appeal as the maximum period for condoning delay has expired. 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 is not maintainable. The revenue's concession, as noted in a similar case, suggests a willingness to allow appeals to be filed beyond the normal limitation period in certain circumstances.