M/S Princess Girls Collection vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court directed that the said appeal may be entertained on its own merits without any objection as to limitation, in view of a concession made by the State. This concession was based on a similar order passed in another case where the State agreed to allow statutory appeals to be filed within two weeks. The Court also directed that any amount deposited or recovered against the disputed demand may be adjusted against the requirement to make 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.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Princess Girls Collection, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte adjudication order dated 26.12.2023, passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UP GST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2017-18. 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 with a concession from the State to allow statutory appeals within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge an ex parte adjudication order through a writ petition when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, particularly when the limitation period for appeal has expired? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the principles of alternative remedy and condonation of delay under the UP GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unable to avail the statutory remedy of appeal due to lack of knowledge of the ex parte adjudication order, and the delay in filing the appeal had expired the maximum condonable period. They relied on the principle of allowing appeals on merits in similar circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, implying that the writ petition is not maintainable. They did not present further arguments on the merits of the case.