Mohd. Naseem Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that it is unbelievable that the petitioner was unaware of the notices issued under Section 61 and Section 74, and the final order passed by the respondent, as all such communications were published on the GST portal. The Court found no documentary evidence to support the petitioner's claim that these notices were not published on the additional tab. The appellate authority correctly observed that the petitioner failed to deposit the mandatory 12.5% of the disputed amount as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal. Furthermore, no application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. The Court concluded that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his remedies before the GST authorities. The Court also noted that the writ petition was filed after the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal had expired. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction to bypass statutory remedies and the requirement of depositing the pre-deposit amount after the expiry of the appeal period. The Court found that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal against the impugned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Naseem Khan, operating a restaurant, is aggrieved by an order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Vidisha Circle, confirming a demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 04.02.2025 by the Joint Commissioner (1st Appellate Authority) dismissing his appeal. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice alleging mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns, demanding Rs. 1,33,68,792/-. Subsequent notices under Section 74 demanded Rs. 46,23,586/- tax, Rs. 12,02,400/- interest, and Rs. 11,55,896/- penalty. The petitioner claims unawareness of these notices, stating they were issued on the 'additional notice tab' and he only learned of the demand when attempting to sell land. The GST license was surrendered on 12.04.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned demand order dated 30.11.2022, passed under Section 74 of the CGST/MP GST Act, 2017, is in violation of Section 75(7) of the Act, as the total amount of tax, interest, and penalty demanded exceeds the amount specified in the show-cause notice? 2. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the notices issued by the revenue authorities, and if not, whether the ex-parte orders passed are sustainable? 3. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority on the grounds of being time-barred and non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was justified? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the demand order violates Section 75(7) by exceeding the show-cause notice amount. He also argues that he was unaware of the notices, which were allegedly posted on the 'additional notice tab' of the GST portal, and therefore, the ex-parte orders are bad in law. He claims to have learned of the demand only recently. The revenue's arguments: The State argues that all notices and orders were published on the GST portal and it is unbelievable that the petitioner was unaware. They assert that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing remedies, failed to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit amount for appeal, did not file for condonation of delay, and has filed the writ petition after the limitation period for appeal to the GST Tribunal had expired. The revenue contends that the petitioner is attempting to bypass statutory remedies and deposit requirements.