M/S Grand Construction vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act, nor did it definitively rule on the maintainability of parallel proceedings. Instead, considering that the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act which was pending, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction. The Court directed respondent No.3, the appellate authority, to decide the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was the expeditious disposal of the pending appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Grand Construction, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 11.07.2022 passed by respondent No.4 under Section 74 of the GST Act. The petitioner's primary contention was that no show cause notice was issued prior to the demand notice. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the appellate authority, and this appeal was still pending. Consequently, the respondent argued that parallel proceedings were not maintainable. The petitioner then submitted that the appeal had been pending since 2022 and requested a direction for its expeditious disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether parallel proceedings, a writ petition challenging an order under Section 74 of the GST Act and a pending appeal against the same order under Section 107 of the GST Act, are maintainable? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of parallel proceedings. Instead, upon being informed of the pending appeal, the petitioner requested a direction for the expeditious disposal of the appeal, highlighting that it had been pending since 2022. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent argued that parallel proceedings were not maintainable because the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, which was still pending before the appellate authority.