Writ remedy is not maintainable where statutory appeal is bypassed

Writ remedy is not maintainable where statutory appeal is bypassed and portal notice is ignored.

Issue

Whether a taxpayer can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an ex parte assessment order by claiming non-receipt of notices, when all statutory notices were duly uploaded on the GST portal and the taxpayer failed to comply with mandatory pre-deposit and limitation timelines for statutory appeals.

Facts

The petitioner is an individual assessee who operated a restaurant business as a sole proprietor.
The tax department issued a scrutiny notice in Form GST ASMT-10 to the petitioner pointing out discrepancies and mismatches between their GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filings.
The petitioner did not respond to the ASMT-10 notice, later claiming total unawareness of its issuance.
Consequently, the department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 (involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression), proposing tax, interest, and penalties.
The petitioner again failed to file a response, later asserting that the notice was unnoticed because it appeared only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal.
Subsequently, the petitioner surrendered their GST registration, which was accepted by the department.
The Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an ex parte assessment order under Section 74, confirming the tax demand, interest, and penalties.
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) but failed to make the mandatory 12.5% pre-deposit. Furthermore, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed statutory limitation period without an accompanying delay condonation application, leading to its dismissal.
The petitioner then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, targeting the method of portal service and seeking to bypass the statutory appellate route.

Decision

Portal Upload Constitutes Valid Service: The High Court held that the plea of non-knowledge was entirely unbelievable. All notices, reminders, and final orders were systematically published on the official GST portal, and the petitioner provided no verifiable material to substantiate the claim that the notice was hidden or only available under an “additional” tab.
Statutory Remedy Cannot Be Bypassed: The court observed that the petitioner failed to satisfy the condition precedent of making a pre-deposit for the statutory appeal and allowed the appeal to become time-barred.
Writ Petition Dismissed: Since the writ petition was filed even after the expiry of the limitation period allowed for appealing to the GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner could not use extraordinary writ jurisdiction to bypass the broken statutory remedy chain. The petition was dismissed in favor of the revenue.

Key Takeaways

Portal Monitoring is Obligatory: Taxpayers are legally required to routinely monitor their official GST portal dashboards. Claiming ignorance of an SCN or an order because it was posted under a specific sub-tab (like “Additional Notices”) is not a valid legal defense for non-compliance.
Pre-Deposit is Inflexible: Paying the mandatory pre-deposit is a strict statutory prerequisite for maintaining an appeal under Section 107. Bypassing this financial obligation will result in summary dismissal of the appeal, and courts will not entertain a writ petition to circumvent this requirement.
Writ is Not an Extension of Limitation: High Courts will refuse to exercise their extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if a taxpayer sits on their rights, allows the statutory limitation periods for departmental appeals and tribunals to lapse, and uses a writ petition as an afterthought to revive a dead claim.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Mohd. Naseem Khan

State of Madhya Pradesh^*

VIVEK RUSIA and Pradeep Mittal, JJ.

WRIT PETITION No. 11920 of 2026

APRIL 15, 2026

Mukesh Agrawal and Anuj Karnatak, Advs. for the Petitioner. Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha, Government Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Vivek Rusia, J. – The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Vidisha Circle, Bhopal Division under section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 pertaining to the financial year 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020 and order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby 1st Appellate Authority i.e Joint Commissioner of the State Tax, Bhopal Division has dismissed the appeal.

2. The petitioner has been running a business through a proprietorship firm under the Trade name of Radisson Binakurwai Road Restaurant. The petitioner obtained a GST Number and certificate. The respondent no. 3 issued a show-cause notice ASMT-10 under section 61 on 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-3), alleging a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3 B returns. The petitioner was called upon to deposit a tax of Rs. 1,33,68,792/-. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the said notice on the pretext of being unaware of the issuance of any such notice. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice under section 74 on 12.02.2021 (Annexure P-5). Vide DRC-01 demanding tax of Rs.46,23,586/- along with interest Rs.12,02,400/- and penalty Rs.11,55,896/-. Again, the petitioner did not submit any response to the said show-cause notice as the said notice was issued on the additional notice tab. The respondent no.3 passed an ex parte order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) confirming the demand under section 74 of the CGST/MP GST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Commissioner without deposit of mandatory amount of tax as a pre-deposit condition. The Learned Commissioner has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-11) as time-barred. Hence, this petition before this Court inter alia on the ground that the impugned demand is in violation of section 75(7) of the Act of 2017 as the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order exceeds the amount specified in the show-cause notice. The petitioner has surrendered the GST license to the department on 12.04.2021, which has been accepted by the respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the aforesaid demand and orders only when he tried to sell land by reaching the office of the Sub-Registrar, and he was stopped from executing the sale deed as the demand for GST is pending against him.

4. It cannot be believed that the petitioner did not know the notices issued to him under section 61, 74 and the final order passed by the respondent. All notices and orders were published in the GST portal. The petitioner has not filed any document to show that these notices were published in the additional tab. The appellate authority has observed that the petitioner did not deposit 12.5.% of the amount, which is mandatory before entertaining the appeal. No application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal as well; therefore, the petitioner has been negligent in pursuing the remedies before the GST Authorities. Even this writ petition is filed after one year, when the limitation to file an appeal before the GST Tribunal had expired. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court in order to bypass the statutory remedy, avoidance to deposit 12% amount after expiry of the period of limitations for the filing of an appeal. The petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal before the GST Tribunal against the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.