M/S Sudershan Engg Works Through Its Partner Sanjay Kumar Mittal vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The High Court held that the petitioner's contention that the order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was bad in law for want of a DIN could not be countenanced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that a specific statutory remedy is provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for filing an appeal against such an order. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, especially when the challenge is to the procedural validity of an order for which an appellate mechanism exists. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sudershan Engineering Works, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging an order dated 25.04.2023 passed by an Authority under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). The respondents included the Union of India and various State authorities of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court was considering the admission of this writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether an order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is bad in law for want of a Document Identification Number (DIN)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order dated 25.04.2023 was invalid because it lacked a DIN, rendering it legally unsustainable. They sought intervention from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the petitioner had a specific statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to file an appeal against the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR ON THE 17th OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 16147 of 2023 BETWEEN:- M/S SUDERSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SANJAY KUMAR MITTAL S/O SHRI OM PRAKASH MITTAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D 532 SURESH NAGAR, THATIPUR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SUNEEL K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, G.S.T. COUNCIL, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE 1, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) 1 (ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS STAT
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.