M/S Pvcon Engineering vs. CGST And Central Excise Bhopal

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Tribunal, for which Presiding Officers have been appointed and a circular granting 30 days' time to file an appeal from the date of commencement of filing has been issued. The Court noted that disputed questions of fact, such as violations of natural justice and whether Respondent No. 2 was a 'proper officer', require examination by the GST Tribunal based on filed documents. Regarding the challenge to the pre-deposit provision under Section 112, the Court stated that the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid this condition. The Court emphasized that once a tribunal is constituted with judicial and technical members to handle GST disputes, the High Court should not entertain such petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and parties should be relegated to the GST Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s PVCON ENGINEERING, challenged a show-cause notice dated 26/7/2024 and an order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 (Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal), imposing penalties under Section 122(1)(ii) & (vii) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 21.10.2025. The petitioner is engaged in construction work. An investigation was initiated on 02.12.2020 for allegedly passing on irregular input tax credit. The petitioner's registration was cancelled on 24.3.2021. The show-cause notice proposed penalties for financial years 2017-18 & 2018-19. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The petitioner alternatively sought to declare that the pre-deposit provision under Section 112 of the CGST Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original issued by Respondents No.1 & 2 are without jurisdiction, considering Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST, which allegedly restricts DGGI officers from issuing show-cause notices under Section 122 of the CGST Act, limiting them to Sections 73 or 74? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 3's circular dated 27.10.2025, assigning functions to Respondents No.1 & 2, cannot be applied retrospectively. They further contended that Respondent No. 2 (DGGI officer) is not the 'proper officer' for issuing the show-cause notice under Section 122, as Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST only permits DGGI officers to issue notices under Section 73 or 74. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action, submitting that the impugned orders are just and proper.