Order Date – 23 August 2023

Parties: M/S Manoj Steel Traders Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, M/S Manoj Steel Traders, is deals with the business of iron & steel. 
• On 18.03.2018, while the goods were transported, the respondent no. 3 intercepted the goods and consequently detained the goods and a notice was issued under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act directing the petitioner to deposit the tax & penalty.
• The goods along with vehicle were released on an interim order passed on 28.03.2018 and tax and penalty were confirmed. Against such order on 28.03.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal accompanied by delay condonation application, which has been dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated 23.02.2021.
• It was contented by the petitioner that the original copy of the order was received by the erstwhile counsel, who did not file the appeal and therefore, the mistake on the part of the counsel, should not be treated adversely against the petitioner.

Issue – 

• Whether the authorities are justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation?

Order – 

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that it is evidently clear from Section 169(1)(a) of the Act that the order communicated on an Advocate will be deemed service upon the petitioner. Once an order has been communicated on 28.03.2018, the limitation for filing an appeal within a period of three months ends in the last week of June, 2018.
• On the pointed query as to how and under what mode the petitioner came to know about the passing the order dated 28.03.2018 on 26.06.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner could not reply the same and submitted that the appeal filed below is silent on this point.
• On perusal of section 5 application of the petitioner filed in support of the appeal, not a single word has been whispered as to how and in what method the petitioner came to know about the said order on 26.06.2019 and as to why the application was moved on 26.06.2019 by another counsel, when the order dated 28.03.2018 was already communicated to the petitioner's Advocate, namely, Shri Anil Jain. 
• In view of these facts not being in dispute, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.