Dehri Infrastructures PVT. LTD. vs. CGST Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Tribunal. The Court noted that Presiding Officers have been appointed and directed to join their respective Tribunals, and a circular has been issued by the Central Government providing a 30-day window to file appeals before the Tribunal from its operational date. Furthermore, the Court observed that there are disputed questions of fact requiring examination based on documents to be filed by the petitioner, which are best suited for adjudication by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned Tribunal to avail the available remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the cancellation of registration or the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Dehri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., challenged the cancellation of its GST registration by an order dated 15.10.2024. Subsequently, its appeal against this cancellation was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Bhopal, via an order dated 05.12.2024. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the appellate order. The Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Tribunal, whose Presiding Officers have now been appointed and directed to join their respective Tribunals. A circular from the Central Government grants 30 days to file an appeal before the Tribunal from its operational commencement date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the GST Tribunal, considering the appointment of Presiding Officers and the issuance of a circular regarding appeal filing timelines, thereby rendering the writ petition premature or inappropriate? (Section 112 of the CGST Act) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition by approaching the High Court. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the alternative remedy. Revenue's contention: The respondents (CGST Bhopal and others) contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy available under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Tribunal, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. They highlighted the operational status of the Tribunal and the relevant circular.