M/S Vansh Trading Com. Through Proprietor Ravi Arvind Yadav vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the review petition. It reasoned that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act due to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, supported by findings of bogus invoices and lack of actual goods transfer. An appeal against this cancellation was also dismissed. The Court noted that the petitioner could obtain another GST registration to continue business. Crucially, the Court found that the GST Tribunal was on the verge of functioning, with e-filing having commenced and a substantial number of cases already registered and e-filed. Therefore, for the short duration of the Tribunal's non-functionality, no case for review was made out. The operative direction was the dismissal of the review petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vansh Trading Com., filed a review petition seeking to recall an order dated August 5, 2025, which had dismissed their Writ Petition No. 10600/2025. The original writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the GST Tribunal within 30 days of its commencement. The petitioner argued that the GST Tribunal had not yet fully commenced functioning, as only judicial members were appointed, and technical members were absent. They also stated that their GST registration had been cancelled, preventing them from conducting business. The cancellation of registration was based on findings of bogus invoices, builty, and e-way bills, with no actual goods transfer, under Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act. An appeal against this cancellation was also dismissed on February 19, 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a review petition to recall an order dismissing a writ petition, when the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the GST Tribunal, and the Tribunal is not yet fully functional? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the GST Tribunal has not started functioning effectively due to the absence of technical members, making it impossible to pursue their remedies there. They argued that their GST registration cancellation has crippled their business operations and therefore, the previous order should be recalled and the writ petition entertained on its merits. They also pointed to identical writ petitions pending consideration. Revenue's arguments: The respondent/State did not explicitly record arguments in opposition to the review petition. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the State's position was that the Tribunal was on the verge of functioning, with e-filing having commenced and a significant number of cases already registered and e-filed.