Shree Ram Enterprises Through Proprietor Dharmendra Kumar Nagar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning was that the petitioner had not filed a timely statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which had become barred by limitation. Similarly, the rectification application filed under Section 161 of the GST Act also appeared to be barred by limitation. The Court found that the mere fact that the petitioner was late in filing the statutory appeal could not be a ground to entertain a writ petition. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition without delving into the merits of the petitioner's submissions regarding the physical reply or the rectification application.

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Ram Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a final assessment summary order dated September 12, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3. This order imposed GST, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 15,52,236/-. The petitioner contended that they had submitted a physical reply on August 14, 2024, and a rectification application on May 16, 2026, which were not considered. The petitioner cited a lack of technical awareness for submitting the reply physically and personal distress due to a family medical emergency. The revenue opposed the petition, arguing that an alternative remedy of appeal was available and the petition was filed to avoid pre-deposit. The Court noted that the rectification application appeared barred by limitation, as was the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when statutory remedies of appeal and rectification are available, and if so, under what circumstances? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 107 and Section 161 of the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the matter should be remanded back to the authority for proper consideration of their rectification application and physical reply. They claimed to have complied with procedural formalities, with the physical submission of the reply being due to a lack of portal knowledge and personal distress. They sought a reasoned and speaking order after a meaningful opportunity of being heard. Revenue's arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy of appeal was available. They contended that the petition was filed solely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement for an appeal.