Uday Traders vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained as the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal against the impugned orders dated 17.02.2026. The Court referred to Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST dated 18.03.2020, which clarified that appeals to the Appellate Tribunal can be filed within three months from the communication of the order or the date the President/State President enters office, whichever is later. The Court noted that it had previously dismissed a similar writ petition (W.P. No. 9964/2026) on identical facts, emphasizing the availability of the appellate remedy. The Court also observed that entertaining the writ petition would allow the petitioner to bypass the condition of pre-deposit. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with the liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Uday Traders, challenged orders dated 17.02.2026 by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Bhopal Division, which dismissed their appeals for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to delay. The petitioner, a contractor, had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. Show-cause notices under Section 74 of the GST Act were issued on 12.01.2024. The petitioner claims they could not respond due to GST portal issues until 16.01.2024, leading to ex-parte orders on 03.04.2024 by the adjudicating authority. Recovery notices were issued to M.P. Gramin Bank for Rs. 24,15,334/- and Rs. 15,24,708/-. The petitioner learned of these orders only upon bank notification and subsequently filed appeals on 03.01.2026, which were dismissed as delayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notices issued under Section 74 of the GST Act were vague and lacked specific reasons, thereby violating procedural fairness? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that the notices were vague, and the GST portal's non-functionality until 16.01.2024 prevented a timely response, leading to ex-parte orders. They also contended that the adjudicating authority failed to communicate through prescribed modes under Section 169 of the Act and sought parity with a previous High Court order (W.P. No. 11572/2025) directing a fresh hearing. 2. Whether the High Court should entertain this writ petition bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Tribunal? (Question of law). The respondent State argued in opposition, supporting the impugned order and seeking dismissal of the petition.