The Supreme Court's order concluded the matter, but the petitioner was allowed to pursue an appeal, with Section 14 of the Limitation Act applicable for calculating the limitation period.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated June 16, 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Grade-2), Appeal, Commercial Tax, Gorakhpur rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. Ms. Pooja Talwar submits that the adjudicating authority issued the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the Act on February 15, 2018. This order, wherein the tax and penalty has been imposed along with seizure of the goods, had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court vide Writ Tax No.352 of 2018 on March 12, 2018, in which an interim relief was passed on March 12, 2018 directing the goods to be released upon furnishing of indemnity bond equal to the value of tax and penalty by the petitioner. Subsequently, the said petition was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated September 13, 2021 with the following observations:

"3. At the outset, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that in identical matter the issue travelled to the Supreme Court as Special Leave Petition (C) No.25291 of 2019, wherein the Supreme Court passed the following order:

"In view of this order, all the Writ Petitions pending before the High Court, list whereof has been furnished in the affidavit are deemed to have been disposed of accordingly. We have passed this common order to cover all cases of seizure during the relevant period, to obviate inconsistency in application of Law and also to do away with multiple appeals required to be filed by the State/assessee to assail the unstable orders/directions passed by the High Court in subject writ petition(s) referred to in the affidavit filed by the State before this Court."

4. Thus, the matter stands concluded in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court.

5. Sri. Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to institute and/or pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the State would have no objection to the same, if that remedy has been or is availed in accordance with law.

7. In view of such facts, the present proceedings are found to have been terminated by the Supreme Court.

8. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty."

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the appellate authority on October 12, 2021, that is, within a month of passing of the order by this Court.

4. Ms. Pooja Talwar submits that benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the petitioner and entire period from March 12, 2018 to September 13, 2021 would stand excluded. If the same is done, the petitioner's filing of the appeal before the appellate authority is very much within time, as the period of limitation is three months (additional one month is also available to the petitioner if sufficient cause is shown).

5. Per contra, Sri. Rishi Kumar, counsel for the State has argued that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not apply.

6. Upon perusal of the documents and upon hearing counsel for the parties, it is clear that coordinate Bench of this Court had given a specific direction by order dated September 13, 2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Furthermore, this Court in Murli Packers v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.407 of 2020 decided on January 24, 2024) has held that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply in relation to the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act.

7. In light of the above, the impugned order dated June 16, 2023 is quashed and set aside with a d