M/S S.R. Construction Through Its Sole Proprieter Sailendra Singh Rajput vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act. The counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail this statutory remedy. The Court granted this permission and accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. However, the Court clarified that the liberty granted should not be construed as condonation of any delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner was explicitly informed that if an appeal is filed, they would be obligated to file a separate application for condonation of delay, providing a valid explanation for not filing within the prescribed limitation period. No decision was made on the merits of the impugned order itself.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S.R. Construction, through its sole proprietor Sailendra Singh Rajput, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior. The petition challenged an order dated 30.08.2024, issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought to quash this impugned order. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others were the respondents. The impugned order was noted by the Court to be an appealable order under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel subsequently sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, is amenable to challenge through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or if the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is the appropriate recourse. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, indicated that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail this remedy. This implies an acknowledgment that the writ petition might not be the most appropriate forum or that the statutory appeal is preferred. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the State/Revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the issues arising from the impugned order. Their appearance was noted, and the counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal.