M/S Shiv Shakti Construction vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court declined to delve into the petitioner's grounds regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity. Instead, the petition was dismissed on the specific ground that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information in paragraph 3 of their petition concerning the remedies exhausted. The Court noted that the petitioner had claimed to have availed all statutory remedies, but this was contradicted by the fact that the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had not been availed, and the period of limitation for filing such an appeal had expired. The Court found this situation gave an impression that the petition was filed to circumvent the expired limitation period. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on this procedural deficiency, without deciding the merits of the demand raised by the Revenue. No cost was awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiv Shakti Construction, challenged two orders passed by the State Tax authorities. The first order, dated 24.08.2022, issued under Section 74 of the MPSGST/CGST Act, 2017, raised a demand of Rs. 1,01,11,999/- for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed, Rs. 33,12,811/- towards interest, and Rs. 1,01,11,999/- as penalty, totaling Rs. 2,35,36,809/-. The second order, dated 17.01.2023, attached the petitioner's bank account to secure this demand. The petitioner's primary contention was that they were not afforded due process, including a reasonable opportunity and proper scrutiny of records. The Revenue, in its reply, raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has exhausted all statutory remedies available in law, as claimed in the petition, despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and the expiry of the limitation period for filing such an appeal? (Question of fact and law, concerning the procedural history and availability of remedies). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner claimed to have availed all statutory remedies. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and had approached the High Court after the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired, suggesting an attempt to avoid the obstacle of the expired limitation period. The Revenue relied on the fact that the petitioner's petition contained incorrect information regarding remedies exhausted.