Writ Petition Maintained Under Article 226 Cannot Bypass

Writ Petition Maintained Under Article 226 Cannot Bypass Efficacious Remedy of GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112

Issue

Whether a taxpayer can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to challenge an appellate order dismissed on limitation, or if they must be relegated to the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112.

Facts

Assessee & Proceedings: The petitioner, a GST-registered construction contractor, was investigated for allegedly claiming irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Adjudication & First Appeal: A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued proposing a penalty, and the Order-in-Original subsequently imposed the penalty. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal, which was dismissed on the grounds of limitation by the First Appellate Authority.
Writ Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 questioning the officer’s jurisdiction and alleging a breach of principles of natural justice.
Availability of Tribunal Remedy: The filing of appeals before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 stood enabled, along with a 30-day grace period as per the Central Government circular.

Decision

Availability of Efficacious Remedy: An explicit statutory remedy of appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal is available under Section 112.
Relegation to Tribunal: Disputed questions concerning proper officer jurisdiction and alleged natural justice violations require detailed factual examination by the Tribunal.
No Bypassing of Pre-Deposit: Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a mechanism to bypass an efficacious alternative remedy or avoid mandatory statutory pre-deposit requirements.
Verdict: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and relegated the parties to pursue their appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal. (In favour of revenue)

Key Takeaways

Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies: Once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational/accessible, High Courts will generally decline to entertain Article 226 writ petitions on factual or procedural disputes.
Pre-Deposit Mandatory: Taxpayers cannot use writ proceedings to circumvent the statutory requirement of making a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals under Section 112.
Tribunal Jurisdiction on Natural Justice: Allegations of jurisdictional flaws and natural justice breaches are within the competence of the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate upon review of trial records.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PVCON Engineering

CGST and Central Excise Bhopal

VIVEK RUSIA, Actg. CJ.
and Pradeep Mittal, J.

WRIT PETITION No. 24931 of 2026

JULY 6, 2026

Abhishek Garg and Aditya Khandekar, Ld. Advs. for the Petitioner. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Ld. Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Vivek Rusia, Acting C.J.,– In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 26/7/2024; the impugned order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No.1/Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal imposed penalty upon the petitioner under Section 122(1)(ii) & (vii) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 as also the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. In the alternative, prayer has been made to declare that provision mandating pre-deposit under section 112 of CGST Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction work, site development, road construction, etc. having GSTIN registration. On 02.12.2020, an investigation was initiated against the petitioner by respondent No.2 on the ground that it was found involved in passing on irregular input tax credit without actual supply of goods. On 24.3.2021, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. The respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 26.7.2024 proposing penalty u/s 122(1)(ii) & (iv) of CGST Act and section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 in respect of financial years 2017-18 & 2018-19. The respondent No.1 vide impugned Order-in-Original dated 03.10.2024 imposed penalty under aforesaid provisions. Being dissatisfied with the Order-in-Original the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority u/s 107 of CGST Act. The Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 21.10.2025 dismissed the appeal u/s 107 of the CGST Act on the ground of limitation. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 vide circular dated 27.10.2025 assigned functions of proper officer to respondents No.1 & 2, therefore, the impugned show-cause notice and impugned Order-in-Original by the respondents No.1 & 2 are without jurisdiction as aforesaid circular cannot be made effective retrospectively. According to the petitioner, the Impugned Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 2 (DGGI officer) proposing to impose penalty under Section 122 (1) (vii) of the CGST Act is without any jurisdiction as Respondent No. 2, is not the ‘proper officer’ for the purpose of issuing the Impugned Show Cause Notice under Section 122 of the CGST Act as the Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST only permits DGGI officers to issue show cause notice only under Section 73 or 74 of CGST/ Act.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that the impugned orders are just and proper.

5. The petitioner has a remedy under section 112 of the CGST Act before the GST Tribunal. Now, the Presiding Officers have been appointed, and they have been directed to join their concerned GST Tribunal. The Central Government has issued a circular granting 30 days’ time to file an appeal from the date of starting of filing before the Tribunal.

6. Even otherwise, there are disputed questions of fact as to whether entire proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and whether the respondent no. 2 was a “proper officer” which are required to be examined by the GST Tribunal based on documents to be filed by the petitioner. As far as relief relating to declaring the mandatory provision of pre-deposit for preferring appeal u/s 112 of CGST Act is concerned, it is observed that in order to avoid the condition of pre-deposit, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Once the statute has created a tribunal comprising judicial as well as technical members to deal with the matter related to the GST disputes, the High Court cannot be permitted to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties should be relegated to the GST Tribunal for redressal of their grievance relating to GST. If the High Court is required to entertain each and every matter, then what would be the use of the constitution of the tribunal, comprising judicial as well as expert members, to deal with the case on judicial as well as technical side, both?

7. In view of the aspect that remedy of an appeal u/s 112 of the CGST Act is available to the petitioner, the instant petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Tribunal to avail the remedy of an appeal.