M/S Vansh Tradingh Company Through Ravi Arivind Yadav vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that although the writ petition was filed when the GST Appellate Tribunal was not operational, a notification dated 04.08.2025 had since appointed members to the Tribunal, indicating it was expected to commence functioning. The Court expressed its hope that the Tribunal would start functioning within a month. Consequently, the Court decided that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. The petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date the Tribunal starts functioning. Such an appeal, if filed within this period, would be entertained on its merits without any objection regarding limitation. The issue of whether the High Court would have entertained the writ petition on merits if the Tribunal remained non-operational was not decided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vansh Trading Company, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, challenging an order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority and Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Division-1, Indore. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, thereby affirming an earlier order dated 10.09.2024 by the Dy. Commissioner, State Tax Circle 14, and a rejection order dated 08.10.2024 for revocation of cancellation of registration (Reference No.ZA231024012983Y). The petitioner approached the High Court directly without first filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal is available, particularly in light of the Tribunal becoming functional. The petitioner's contention was that they had filed the writ petition directly to the High Court because, at the time of filing, the GST Appellate Tribunal was not operational. The respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and others) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, but the Court's decision to dispose of the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal implies a consideration of the alternative remedy.