Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Adama India Private Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22632
1 WP-30750-2025
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 18th 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22632
2 WP-30750-2025
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22632
3 WP-30750-2025
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22632
4 WP-30750-2025
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.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
