2025(08)LCX0068

Adama India Private Limited

Versus

State Of Madhya Pradesh

WRIT PETITION No. 30750 of 2025 decided on 18-08-2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

ON THE 18^th OF AUGUST, 2025

WRIT PETITION No. 30750 of 2025

M/S ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri S.Krishnan alongwith Shri Arpit Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. A.G. for the respondents/State

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 whereby the total amount of penalty i.e. Rs.5,98,44,867.00/- has been imposed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 in absence of any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of tax to evade the tax. Since the limitation period for Section 73(1) i.e. three years had expired, therefore, the respondents have taken action under Section 74(1) in which period of limitation is 5 years. In the show cause notice as well as in final order, there is no such allegation of fraud or any willful misstatement in order to evade the tax has been alleged against the petitioner, therefore, this issue is liable to be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The impugned order under Section 74 has been passed in respect of the financial year 2017-18 in which the GST was introduced, therefore, the petitioner wrongly paid the access amount of SGST which was liable to be paid under IGST. This mistake is rectifiable under Section 77 of the CGST Act, therefore, it is not a case of wilful evasion of tax.

3. Learned Dy. A.G. for the respondent/State raises an issue about the maintainability of the petition for want of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The explanations submitted by the petitioner before the Joint Collector, State Tax have been discarded. Now the same are liable to be taken before the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner will have a remedy to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal because vide circular dated 04.08.2025 the appointments of Presiding Officers have been made.

5. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v/s Greatship (India) Limited reported in (2022) 17 SCC 332 has held that the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order and ought to have relegated the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:

"14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order, by- passing the statutory remedies.

15. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to herein above, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.

16. 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 Act. It is directed that if such a remedy is availed within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall decide and dispose of the same on its own merits in accordance with law without raising any question of limitation, however, subject to fulfilling the other conditions, if any, under the statute. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in favour of either of the parties and it is for the appellate authority and/or appropriate authority to consider the appeal/proceedings on its/their own merits and without being influenced in any way by any of the observations made by the High Court which otherwise have been set aside by the present order. The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation of filing the appeal has expired long back, therefore, that period be extended in the interest of justice.

8. The petitioner has filed this present petition on 1st of August, 2025 challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 i.e. after period of six months. Had this petition been filed within period of limitation, then this Court would have condoned the period consumed during pendency of this petition. The statutory period of limitation which is liable to be condoned by the appellate authority cannot be condoned by this Court in writ petition, hence, the prayer made by the petitioner is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.

C.C. as per rules.