M/S Zeal Tradelinks Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Rameshchandra Chandel vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court noted the preliminary objection raised by the respondent-State regarding the statutory appeal provision. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam, and Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Court emphasized that when a statute provides for a statutory appeal, that remedy should be availed. The Petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law if so advised. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Petitioner's claim regarding the revision of GST returns.

Facts

M/s Zeal Tradelinks Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore challenging an order dated December 19, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Audit Wing-1, Indore (Respondent No. IV). The Petitioner sought to quash this order and sought directions to allow revision of periodical GST returns for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 to reflect negative figures for sales and input tax credit, which could not be reported due to restrictions on the GST portal. The Petitioner also sought to allow furnishing revised manual GST returns with these negative figures. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (GST Act)? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the writ petition is maintainable based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which permits writ petitions in cases of enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, orders wholly without jurisdiction, or challenges to the virus of an Act. Respondents' Argument: The Respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the impugned order was passed by a competent authority with jurisdiction, after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering the Petitioner's reply. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, Hameed Kunju vs. Nizam, and Ansal Housing and Construction Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, which emphasize availing statutory appeal remedies when provided.