M/S Kshema Power And Infrastructure Company Private Limited Through Its Authoried Signatory Mr. Vino vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the Order in Original or the rectification application. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's application for rectification/revision within four weeks from the date of the order. The decision taken on the application was to be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed on the rectification application before the appropriate forum if aggrieved. The primary reasoning was the pendency of the rectification application, which had not been adjudicated by the respondent authority. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory application for rectification or revision is pending before an authority, the High Court may direct its expeditious disposal rather than deciding the underlying dispute in a writ petition, provided the petitioner has liberty to challenge the subsequent order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kshema Power and Infrastructure Company Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore. The petitioner sought to quash an Order in Original dated April 23, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 2, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 6,58,72,946/- along with penalty and interest. Alternatively, the petitioner requested a mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to adjudicate an application for rectification/revision filed under Section 108 of the CGST Act. The petitioner informed the Court that this rectification application was filed on July 24, 2024, and remained undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Order in Original dated April 23, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 2, confirming a demand of Rs. 6,58,72,946/- along with penalty and interest against the petitioner? The petitioner argued for this relief. 2. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the petitioner's application for rectification/revision under Section 108 of the CGST Act on merits within a time-bound manner? The petitioner contended that their rectification application, filed on July 24, 2024, had not been decided. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on these issues, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds.