Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited Through Its Director Pawan Garg vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. While acknowledging the petitioner's contention regarding the violation of natural justice and reliance on the Singh Construction case, the Court found that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court distinguished the present case from Singh Construction, where the petitioner had already pursued the first appeal. The Court noted that the petition was filed more than a year after the impugned order. Therefore, it was deemed not a fit case for interference under Article 226. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal as provided by law, with the direction that the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition would be excluded from the period of limitation. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by the High Court's order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not reflected upon the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27/01/2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sale Tax, Circle-14, Indore. This order raised a demand of Rs. 2,13,84,480/- against the petitioner for alleged discrepancies in input tax credit between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A. The petitioner contended that the demand was raised without issuing a valid notice or providing an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. They argued that notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not served through effective modes like email or physical service, leading to no actual knowledge of the proceedings. The petition was filed over a year after the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 27/01/2025, raising a demand of Rs. 2,13,84,480/- for alleged input tax credit discrepancies, is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of proper notice and lack of opportunity of hearing, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not effectively served via email or physical means, thus they had no actual knowledge of the proceedings. They relied on the case of Singh Construction and Co. vs. the State of M.P. and others, decided by a coordinate bench, to support their claim. Respondents' arguments: The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 107 and Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They distinguished the Singh Construction case by noting that the petitioner therein had already availed the first appeal before approaching the High Court.