Pratik Jain vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It observed that the order passed was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court specifically referred to sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 107, which mandate that an appellant must pay the admitted tax, interest, fine, fee, and penalty, and 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount before filing an appeal. The Court considered this a legislative command and declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that doing so would render the statutory provisions ineffective. The dismissal of the petition in limine was not to cause prejudice to the petitioner if they chose to invoke Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Facts
The petitioner, Pratik Jain, a registered taxpayer and Skoda car dealer, filed a writ petition challenging an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for three years. This intimation followed a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the intimation was illegal, citing a letter dated 05.10.2018 from the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Court noted that a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had been issued, culminating in a final order on 30.09.2020. The petitioner had filed the writ petition instead of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the requirement of pre-deposit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A was per se illegal, referencing a letter from the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 05.10.2018, and sought to bypass the appellate route due to the pre-deposit requirement. Revenue's Argument: The respondents did not explicitly argue their case in the provided text. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the existence of a statutory appeal under Section 107, coupled with the mandatory pre-deposit provisions, rendered the writ petition inappropriate.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 74, Section 107, Section 107(5), Section 107(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Jabalpur, dated : 01
.12.2020
Per : Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice. Petitioner, a registered tax payer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, owns a dealership of Skoda Car and is engaged in the sales of cars and service. The grievance of the petitioner is that having been subjected to summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, simultaneously the petitioner is subjected to intimation by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Division-I, Jabalpur Zone in Form GST DRC-01A for all three years wherein the amount payable by the p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.