M/S A.I.B. Fabrication And Electricals Work vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Firstly, the Court noted the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which had recently commenced functioning. The Court observed that the petitioner had approached the High Court by bypassing this statutory remedy, likely to avoid the mandatory 10% deposit required for filing an appeal. The Court emphasized that once a Tribunal is established for appeals against orders passed by subordinate GST authorities, High Courts should not burden themselves with entertaining writ petitions. Secondly, the Court pointed out a procedural deficiency, stating that the petitioner had only filed a copy of the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 and not the order by which the application for rejection was dismissed. This lack of necessary documents prevented the Court from gathering the entire facts. Therefore, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition on the grounds raised by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty as discussed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A.I.B. Fabrication and Electricals Work, a proprietorship firm registered under the GST Act on 14.03.2019, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal, and an order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. Earlier, the Range Superintendent had cancelled the petitioner's registration on 30.06.2024 under Section 16 of the GST Act read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules. The petitioner applied for revocation of cancellation on 14.11.2014. The Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, dismissed this application on 20.01.2025. The petitioner appealed this dismissal on 26.10.2025, but the appeal was dismissed as time-barred by the impugned order dated 23.12.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, and if the petitioner has bypassed this remedy to avoid depositing 10% of the disputed amount as a precondition for appeal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal and that the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time-barred could be challenged before the Tribunal. The petitioner also implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition by approaching the High Court. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the respondents, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue would likely contend that the statutory remedy should be exhausted and that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition when a Tribunal is established for such appeals. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not filed a copy of the order rejecting the revocation application, which is a procedural deficiency.