Shree Ramlala Sarkar Trade Name Dharmendra Singh Parmar Legal Name vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a petitioner who has not been vigilant about their rights and has failed to file an appeal within the statutory limitation period, especially when they had knowledge of the impugned orders. The Court noted that the GST Act provides for appeals under Section 107, and the period of limitation strictly applies without provisions for condoning delay. Entertaining the writ petition would effectively relax these strict conditions. Therefore, no case for interference was made out. The Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the impugned orders.
Facts
The petitioner, Shree Ramlala Sarkar (trade name Dharmendra Singh Parmar), filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging two orders: one dated 27.06.2025, which cancelled their GST registration, and another dated 22.08.2025, which rejected their application for revocation of that cancellation. Both orders were passed by the respondent revenue authorities. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court because the statutory period for filing an appeal against these orders had expired. The petitioner acknowledged having knowledge of both orders but failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to bypass the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under the GST Act, particularly when the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time despite having knowledge of the impugned orders? The petitioner argued that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised due to the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal. The revenue (Union of India and Others) contended that the petitioner was not vigilant about their rights and that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the strict limitation provisions of the GST Act. They emphasized that proceedings under tax statutes should conclude within time, and entertaining a writ petition would amount to relaxing these strict conditions.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The petitioner has filed this present petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby the GST registration has been cancelled and the order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby the application for revocation of cancellation was also rejected.
Both orders are appealable under section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner has invoked the writ juri iction of this Court solely on the ground that the limitation to file an appeal had expired. The period of limitation expired because the petitioner did not file an appeal within the time, despite the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of both orders. The writ 1 WP-10160-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25388 Signed by: TAR
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.