Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Writ Not Maintainable Against GST Demand When No Reply Filed to Show Cause Notice

Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging GST demand orders, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction after failing to respond to statutory notices or seek a personal hearing during the adjudication process.

The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 13.08.2024 and subsequent demand orders issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 for the financial years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. The tax authorities had scrutinized the petitioner’s returns and issued notices under Section 61 of the GST Act, highlighting discrepancies in TDS credit and turnover. Despite being served with these notices and later show cause notices under Section 73, the petitioner did not submit any reply or explanation.

The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that he was denied a fair opportunity of hearing due to illness and hospitalization during the relevant period. The respondents argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal and that the writ petition was not maintainable.

The Court, after considering the submissions, found that the petitioner had been served with all statutory notices, which were also made available on the common portal as per Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act. The Court observed that the petitioner did not respond to any of the notices or seek a personal hearing, and therefore could not claim a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court clarified that the opportunity for a personal hearing arises after a reply to the show cause notice is filed, which the petitioner failed to do.

Addressing the petitioner’s arguments regarding alleged errors in the tax demand and the imposition of penalty, the Court held that such grounds must be raised before the appellate authority. The Court further noted that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal cannot be circumvented by invoking writ jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the High Court held that there was no violation of natural justice and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that statutory remedies must be exhausted and that writ jurisdiction is not available to bypass procedural requirements under the GST Act.