The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, has dismissed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original that confirmed a GST demand of Rs. 22.56 crore for the financial year 2017–18.
The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi has observed that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The petitioner, Ve Commercial Vehicle had assailed the validity of Order passed by the Assistant/Additional Commissioner. The order confirmed the GST demand of Rs. 22,56,93,992 along with interest and penalty.
The petitioner contended that the demand was based on new grounds not mentioned in the original show-cause notice, thus violating principles of natural justice. It was also argued that the proceedings amounted to double taxation and were barred by res judicata, as a prior appeal for the same financial year had already culminated in an order dated December 20, 2024, confirming a smaller demand of ₹1.36 crore.
The department argued that both show-cause notices pertained to different issues — one concerning discrepancies between GSTR-1/GSTR-9 and GSTR-3B, and the other relating to credit and debit notes reflected in GSTR-9 but omitted from GSTR-1. It was further submitted that such rectifications are permissible under the proviso to Section 37(3) of the CGST Act.
After hearing both sides, the Court held that all issues raised by the petitioner involve interpretation of statutory provisions and factual determinations which are best examined by the appellate authority. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [(2022) 17 SCC 332], the Bench reiterated that writ petitions against assessment orders should not ordinarily be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy exists.
Quoting the Apex Court’s observations, the High Court emphasized that “judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternate remedy is available.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It further directed that any delay in filing the appeal may be considered upon an application for condonation.
Case Details
Case Title: Ve Commercial Vehicle Versus UOI
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36491 Of 2025
Date: 22/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: V. Sridharan , Senior Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Dishi Shivpuriya
Read More: How Much Gold Can You Keep At Home Without Proof? CBDT Clarifies
