M/S Ritu Enterprises Through Proprietor Shri Vinod Kumar Jain vs. The Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed on the ground of competence. The reasoning is that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Bench in W.P. No. 2510/2026 (M/s Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) and other connected petitions decided on 22.04.2026. The principle established in the cited case, 'mutatis mutandis', applies to the present case. The Court granted liberty to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire order was quashed based on the precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ritu Enterprises, through its proprietor Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the MPGST Act. This order imposed a total liability of Rs.13,11,203/- (CGST Rs.6,55,602 + SGST Rs.6,55,601/-) for the Financial Year 2021-22. The parties agreed that the present case was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Bench in W.P. No. 2510/2026 (M/s Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), decided on 22.04.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 73 of the MPGST Act, imposing a liability of Rs.13,11,203/- for FY 2021-22, is valid and stands on the ground of competence? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner relied on the judgment in W.P. No. 2510/2026 (M/s Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) to argue that the matter is squarely covered by this precedent, implying the impugned order suffers from a similar defect as in the cited case. Revenue's contention: The respondent/State, through the Dy. A.G., did not dispute the fact that the matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment, thereby implicitly conceding to the petitioner's reliance on the precedent.