Mohd Naseem Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it cannot be believed that the petitioner was unaware of the notices and the final order, as all communications were duly published on the GST portal. The petitioner failed to provide any documentation to substantiate his claim that the notices were published on an 'additional tab' and did not come to his notice. The Court noted that the appellate authority correctly observed the petitioner's failure to deposit the mandatory 12.5% of the disputed amount as a pre-deposit condition for entertaining the appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner remained absent from scheduled personal hearings and did not file any application for condonation of delay, demonstrating negligence in pursuing his remedies before the GST authorities. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner could not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction to bypass statutory remedies, avoid pre-deposit, and overcome the delay in filing the appeal. The Court also referenced Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST, which clarifies the procedure for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, and noted that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal against the order of the 1st Appellate Authority. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd Naseem Khan, operating a restaurant, is aggrieved by an order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year April 2020 to March 2021, demanding Rs. 15,540,976/-. The petitioner claims he was unaware of the show-cause notice as it was issued on an 'additional notice tab' and thus did not respond, leading to an ex parte order. His subsequent appeal to the Joint Commissioner (1st Appellate Authority) was dismissed on 03.03.2025 as time-barred and for non-deposit of the mandatory pre-deposit amount. The petitioner states he only learned of the demand when attempting to sell land. He also claims to have surrendered his GST license on 12.04.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned demand notice and ex parte order dated 19.07.2023 were issued in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to insufficient opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority was rightly dismissed as time-barred and for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the demand notice and ex parte order were passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, as he was not afforded a sufficient opportunity of hearing. He claims he was unaware of the notices and the demand until he attempted to sell land. He also argues that his GST license was surrendered and accepted by the department. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue argued that all notices and orders were duly published on the GST portal and it cannot be believed that the petitioner was unaware. They highlighted that the appellate court observed the petitioner did not deposit the mandatory 12.5% pre-deposit, remained absent from personal hearings, and did not file any application for condonation of delay, indicating negligence in pursuing remedies. The revenue also pointed out the availability of a statutory remedy before the GST Tribunal.