M/S Madhur Parcel Service PVT vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that all legal grounds raised by the petitioner, including the alleged violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the principles of natural justice, could and should be raised in an appeal filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Court found the writ petition to be not maintainable. The reasoning was that the availability of a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act ordinarily bars the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when the grounds of challenge can be effectively addressed in the appellate forum. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the violation of natural justice or Section 75(4).
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Madhur Parcel Service Pvt, a registered Goods Transport Agency, received two show cause notices (Form GST DRC-01) dated 09.11.2023 from Respondent No. 2 concerning alleged tax liability for Financial Year 2021-22. The notices demanded a deposit of Rs. 39,79,634/- by 11.12.2023 but did not specify the date, time, or venue for a personal hearing. Consequently, the petitioner alleges that no effective personal hearing was granted before the impugned orders, dated 26.08.2025, were passed by Respondent No. 2 under Sections 73 and 74(1) of the MPSGST Act, 2017, read with the CGST Act, 2017, imposing tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging these orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders, passed under Sections 73 and 74(1) of the MPSGST Act, 2017 read with the CGST Act, 2017, are illegal and liable to be set aside for being passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notices failed to specify details for a personal hearing, thus violating the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the principles of natural justice. They contended that this procedural lapse vitiated the impugned orders, making them liable to be quashed. The petitioner also argued that a writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy, as the orders were passed in breach of natural justice and statutory provisions. Revenue's contention: The State argued that a statutory appeal lies before the appellate authority against the impugned orders, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74(1), Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Per: Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice The primary contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 under Sections 73 and 74(1) of the MPSGST Act, 2017 read with the CGST Act, 2017, are illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside as they have been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, a duly registered Goods Transport Agency (GTA) bearing GSTIN: 23AAGCM4924N1Z8, was issued two show cause notices in Form GST DRC-01 dated 09.11.2023 in relation to the alleged tax liability for the Financial Year 2021–22. Although the notices required the petitioner to s
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.