TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST Demand Notice Dismissed: Petitioner Must First Exhaust Statutory Appeal Remedies Under Section 107</h1> <h3>M/s Naman Industries Through Its Proprietor Rajesh Mehta Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others</h3> HC dismissed writ petition challenging GST demand notice, ruling that petitioner must first exhaust statutory appeal remedies under Section 107 of GST ... Maintainability of petition - validiy of SCN and adjudication order - HELD THAT:- Looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, it is not deemed proper to entertain this petition. Since the petition is not maintainable, the question of interim stay of the impugned order does not arises. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Section 107 of GST Act, 2017 alongwith application for stay in accordance with law, if so advised. This writ petition being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby, dismissed. Issues:Petition under Article 226 challenging show-cause notice and adjudication order for GST demand.Analysis:The petitioner, a proprietorship firm dealing in Lead Ingots, challenged the show-cause notice and adjudication order issued by respondent No. 2 regarding GST demand. The petitioner's supplier, M/s Royal Traders, availed ITC without filing GSTR-3B returns, leading to cancellation of its GST registration. Consequently, a demand of Rs. 3,07,19,525/- was raised against the petitioner. The petitioner's detailed replies were deemed unsatisfactory, resulting in the issuance of show-cause notices for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that they were not liable for the supplier's default and criticized the lack of reasons in the impugned order confirming the demand.The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should have been against the defaulting supplier, not them. However, the respondent maintained that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, and filing a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy. Citing legal precedents, the respondent emphasized the need to exhaust statutory appeal provisions before resorting to writ petitions. The court, after considering the arguments, found the petition not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal route if desired.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory appeal remedies under the GST Act. The court highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and refraining from bypassing statutory appeal provisions by resorting directly to writ petitions. The petitioner was advised to pursue the appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act if they wished to challenge the impugned order effectively.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
