ORDER

HON’BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH,J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 27.03.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Judicial region-IV, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, in Appeal No.32 of 2021 for assessment year 2017-18 under Section 129 (3) of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Act, 2017’).

3. The Adjudicating authority had passed an order on 08.03.2018 whereby tax of Rs.97,834/- plus same amount of penalty was imposed on the petitioner.

4. The facts have been noted in the impugned order which are as under:- Vehicle No.HR74 1485 was checked by a team led by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax on 08.03.2018. In the said vehicle surgical goods of M/s Naulakha Industries, B-17, Wazeerpur Industrial Area, Delhi was being taken. On physical verification of the papers, it was found that in part B of E-bill, the vehicle number was missing. Since it is mandatory requirement to mention the vehicle number in the e-bill, on the value of goods being taken in the said vehicle, tax of Rs.97834/- and some amount of penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017 before the appellate authority against the said order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 08.03.2018. Despite several notices having been issued to the petitioner to appear and prosecute the appeal, the petitioner chose not to appear and prosecute the appeal and, therefore, the appellate authority vide impugned ex parte order had decided the appeal on 27.03.2021.

6. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed after a delay of more than 2 years.

7. The appellate authority after considering the order passed by the adjudicating authority had noted that the appellant did not file any document/evidence to show that on e-bill vehicle number was mentioned. Once the papers were not in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2017 and rules made thereunder, the adjudicating authority has proceeded to assess the tax and imposed penalty. The appellate authority did not find any error on law or facts.

8. Sri H.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that because of spread of COVID-19 the petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority. However, there is no explanation coming in the present petition regarding delay of more than two years. The only ground, which has been taken in the present petition, regarding delay and laches is the petitioner did not get copy of the impugned order. However, this ground falls on the ground by perusing the impugned order. After the impugned order was passed, a copy of order was sent to the Additional Commissioner- Grade 1, Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner. Moreover, it was the duty of the petitioner to find out what happened in the appeal which had been instituted by him.

9. Considering the aforesaid fact, this petition is liable to the dismissed on the ground of delay itself. Even on merit, I do not find any substance in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.