Pace Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. & Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The Court stipulated that if the appeal is filed within this period, it shall be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, based on the concession made by the State. This decision was made in view of similar circumstances in a previous case where the State had made a fair concession. Any amount deposited or recovered against the disputed demand is 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 decide the merits of the adjudication order itself, but rather facilitated the petitioner's access to the appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Pace Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 29.07.2024, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 of the UP GST Act, 2017, pertaining to the tax period of January 2024. 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 delay condonation period had expired. The Court noted a previous similar case, M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the State conceded to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks, leading to the disposal of that writ petition.

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 under the UP GST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner can be granted relief to file a statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period, considering the circumstances of lack of knowledge of the order and expiry of the maximum delay condonation period? The petitioner argued that due to a lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, they were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal within the stipulated time. They further contended that the maximum period for condoning the delay had expired, effectively barring them from filing an appeal. The revenue, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the revenue.