Mohd. Naseem Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's writ petition is not maintainable. The Court found it unbelievable that the petitioner had no knowledge of the notices issued under Section 61 and Section 74, and the final order, as all these were published on the GST portal. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. The appellate court's observation that the petitioner did not deposit the mandatory 12.5% of the disputed amount before his appeal could be entertained was noted. Furthermore, the petitioner remained absent from scheduled personal hearings and did not file any application for condonation of delay. The Court concluded that the petitioner was negligent throughout in pursuing his remedies before the GST authorities and therefore cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court to bypass statutory remedies, avoid the mandatory deposit, and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Court also noted that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal against the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Naseem Khan, operating a restaurant, is aggrieved by an order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Vidisha Circle, Bhopal Division, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019. This order confirmed a demand of tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner's appeal before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhopal Division, was dismissed on 03.03.2025 as time-barred and for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions. The petitioner claims to have learned of the demand only when attempting to sell land. He had surrendered his GST license on 12.04.2021. The petitioner argues the demand exceeded the show-cause notice amount, violating Section 75(7). The respondents contend all notices were published on the GST portal, and the petitioner was negligent in pursuing remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand raised under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, is invalid for exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice, thereby violating Section 75(7) of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner's writ petition is maintainable given his alleged ignorance of notices, failure to respond to show-cause notices, non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for appeal, and the availability of a statutory remedy before the GST Tribunal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the final demand order under Section 74 is illegal as it exceeds the amount mentioned in the show-cause notice, contravening Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017. He also claims to have been unaware of the notices and orders until recently. He argues that the appellate authority wrongly dismissed his appeal as time-barred and for non-deposit of the mandatory pre-deposit amount. Revenue's Arguments: The State argues that all notices and orders were published on the GST portal and that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his remedies. They contend that the petitioner failed to deposit the mandatory 12.5% of the disputed amount before filing the appeal and missed personal hearing dates. The State asserts that the writ petition should not be entertained to bypass statutory remedies, avoid deposit, and condone the delay in filing the appeal.