TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07.2025, the impugned show cause-cum-Demand notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.06.2025/18.08.2025 issued by the respondents No.4 to 6 and impugned demand Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.10.2025 by respondent No.5 issued in violation of Section 65, 74, 157 read with Rules 26(3), 101, 142 of Madhya Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 Act and Rules, 2017. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :- 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the construction and development of infrastructures in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ADT-01, the petitioner-company furnished all the necessary documents for conducting the audit for the aforesaid period by way of E-mail dated 10.12.2024, and after following the due process of law, was given the liberty of hearing. After submitting the requisite documents, the respondent No.7 issued a Spot Memo No.1 on 23.01.2025, pointing out certain discrepancies which are mentioned in para 5.11 of this petition. Thereafter, Spot Memo-II was issued on the subject of issuance of consultative letter cum demand notice for the period of 2020-21 to 2022-23 and proposed demand amounting to Rs. 23,70,92,340/- (CGST Rs. 11,85,46,170/- + SGST Rs. 11,85,46,170/-) and invoked Section 74 of MPGST/CGST Act, 2017 against the petitioner. 6. In respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....buse in process of law and violation of circulars and polices issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and pure question of law or interpretation is involved, therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of "M/s Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and another" passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition (Tax) No.255/2012. 9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Himmatlal Harilal Mehta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", [AIR 1954 SC 403], "Collector of Customs vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani", [AIR 1961 SC 1506], "Collector Of Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Isha Beebi vs. Tax Recovery Officer" [(1976) 1 SCC 70 (para 5)], "Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks" [(1998) 8 SCC 1], "Guruvayur Devasworn Managing Committee vs. C.K. Rajan" [(2003) 7 SCC 546 (para 67, 68)]. Conclusion. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has effectively participated before the Competent Authority, and thereafter, the final order dated 16.10.2025 under Section 74 of the GST Act has been passed. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the show cause notice dated 18.08.2025 as well as the audit report ADT-02 issued on 29.07.2025 for the financial year 2020-21 and 2022-23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited" report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order. The High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner - assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under the statute. 17. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the assessment order and consequential notice of demand of tax is hereby dismissed. The respondent - assessee is relegated to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and other remedies available under the MVAT Act and CST....