MP High Court Refuses GST Writ Petition as Effective Appeal Remedy Before GSTAT Was Available

A.I.B. Fabrication and Electricals Work Vs Union of India And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm challenging orders dated 18.12.2025 and 23.12.2025 relating to cancellation of GST registration and dismissal of appeal as time-barred. The petitioner-firm, engaged in fabrication and electrical work, had obtained GST registration on 14.03.2019. The registration was cancelled on 30.06.2024 by the Range Superintendent under Section 16 of the GST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for revocation of cancellation, which was rejected on 20.01.2025 after issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner challenged the rejection order through an appeal filed on 26.10.2025, but the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal and argued that the limitation issue required adjudication. However, the Court observed that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act before the GST Appellate Tribunal was available, and the Tribunal had already commenced functioning. The Court noted that the petitioner appeared to have bypassed the statutory remedy to avoid the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% required for filing an appeal. The Court also observed that the petitioner had failed to place necessary documents on record, including the order rejecting the revocation application, thereby preventing complete examination of facts. Holding that the High Court should not burden itself with writ petitions where an effective appellate remedy exists before the GST Tribunal, the Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it with liberty to avail the statutory remedy.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner-company has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2025 and 18.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2- Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal (M.P.) Respondent No.3- Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal (M.P.), respectively.

Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the fabrication and electrical work. The petitioner-Firm got a registration certificate under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “GST Act, 2017”) on 14.03.2019.

3. Vide order dated 30.06.2024, the Range Superintendent has cancelled the registration of the petitioner-Firm under Section 16 of the GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner-Firm filed an application for revocation of the cancellation of Registration on 14.11.2014.

4. The Adjudication Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2024 to the petitioner-Firm. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.01.2025, the Authority-Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Range-III, Division-II, dismissed the application dated 14.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner-Firm for revocation of cancellation of registration.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Range-III, Division-II, the petitioner-Firm challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal on 26.10.2025 but the same has been dismissed as time-barred vide impugned order dated 23.12.2025.

6. Although the petitioner-Firm has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Tribunal, which has started recently. The petitioner-Firm has approached this Court by bypassing the statutory remedy in order to avoid the deposit of 10% amount, which is a precondition for filing an appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no delay in filing the appeal. On this ground alone, the impugned order can be challenged before the Tribunal because it requires adjudication whether the appeal was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation.

8. Even otherwise, the petitioner-Firm has only filed a copy of the impugned order dated 23.12.2025. The petitioner-Firm has not filed a copy of the order by which the application for rejection has been dismissed. Therefore, the present Writ Petition suffers from the non-filing of necessary documents in order to gather the entire fact. The petitioner-Firm cannot expect the High Court to issue notice and summon all the orders from the respondent/authority.

9. We do not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground raised by the petitioner despite the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal before the GST Tribunal. Once the Union of India has established the Tribunal for the appeals filed against the orders passed by the Subordinate GST Authorities, the High Court should not burden itself by entertaining the Writ Petition.

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty as discussed above .