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 Court found that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which was available against the impugned order. However, the Court noted that this appeal remedy had already become barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that merely because the petitioner was late in filing the statutory appeal was not a sufficient ground to entertain a writ petition. The Court also observed that the rectification application filed under Section 161 of the GST Act appeared to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Ram Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated September 12, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 3, which imposed GST, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,31,385/-. The petitioner contended that they had filed a physical reply on August 14, 2024, to a show-cause notice dated August 9, 2024, but due to a lack of technical awareness, it was not submitted electronically. The petitioner also mentioned personal difficulties due to a family member's illness. A rectification application filed under Section 161 of the GST Act was pending, but the court noted it appeared barred by limitation. The revenue opposed the petition, arguing that an appeal remedy was available. The court observed that the petitioner was late in filing the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should quash the show cause notices dated 26/06/2024 and 09/08/2024 and the consequential assessment order dated 12/09/2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as being arbitrary, ex-parte, and void ab-initio, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim of having filed a physical reply and a pending rectification application? 2. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 3 to consider and pass a reasoned order on the rectification application filed under Section 161 of the GST Act, after affording a personal hearing? 3. Whether the Court should direct the authorities to accept and evaluate the physical reply submitted by the petitioner on 14/08/2024, along with documentary evidence of prior suo-moto self-rectification? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was arbitrary and ex-parte. They sought to have the matter remanded back to the authority, emphasizing that a rectification application was pending and a physical reply had been submitted. They attributed the physical submission to a lack of technical awareness and personal distress due to a family member's illness. They relied on the reliefs sought in their petition, including quashing the impugned orders and directing consideration of their reply and rectification application. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue opposed the petition, arguing that an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. They contended that the present petition was filed solely to avoid the pre-deposit requirement for an appeal.