[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Annapporna Electricals vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WP-18152-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18150 of 2023
M/S SANJAY PALIYA CONTRACTOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pranjal Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18151 of 2023
M/S ANNAPOORNA ELECTRICALS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pranjal Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 18152 of 2023
M/S ANNAPPORNA ELECTRICALS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KOSHTA
Signing time: 08-04-2026
18:08:08
2 WP-18152-2023
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pranjal Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 20383 of 2023
M/S SANJAY PALIYA CONTRACTOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pranjal Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Since identical questions of fact and law are involved in these Writ
Petitions, all these matters are being decided by this common order. For the
sake of convenience, to decide the controversy involved therein, the facts are
being taken from Writ Petition No.18150/2023.
2. The petitioner has filed this present petition, being aggrieved by
the order-in-original dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2,
pertaining to the year 2020-21. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm and
3 WP-18152-2023
registered with the GST department. The petitioner is engaged in the
business of construction. After scrutiny of the return submitted by the
petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Itarsi Circle, noticed
certain discrepancies, and issued GST ASMT-10 dated 20.04.2022 calling
upon the petitioner to explain why the amount of Tax of Rs. 5,75,712/- with
interest, and penalty be recovered.
3. The petitioner submitted a summary of GSTR-R2 (Auto-draft)
before the Assistant Commissioner without any detailed explanation about
the alleged discrepancy. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the show-
cause notice under Section 73, dated 07.06.2022, alleging the wrong
availment/utilisation of input tax credit. The petitioner was called upon to
submit a reply on 06.07.2022. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit the
reply; therefore, the Assistant Commissioner passed a final order confirming
the demand and interest penalty total to the tune of Rs. 5,57,469/-. Instead of
preferring an appeal against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of a writ petition alleging the violation and
contravention of the provisions of the GST Act while passing the impugned
order dated 28.07.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
not given an opportunity of personal hearing as provided under Section 75(4)
of the Act. Therefore, there is a complete violation of the principle of natural
justice; the impugned order is unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a
4 WP-18152-2023
violation of Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, which mandates uploading the
summary order in FORM GST DRC-07 specifying therein the amount of
tax, interest, and penalty payable by the person chargeable. The order dated
28.07.2022 cannot be said to be an Order-in-Original passed under Section
73 of the GST Act, therefore no appeal could be filed before the Appellate
Authority.
6. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in which the
impugned order in the Order-in-Original has been quashed for want of giving
an opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) the
GST Act.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied the
compilation of the photocopy of the orders passed by this Court as well as by
other High Courts, in support of above submissions, which are as under:
Sl. Paragraph Page
Party Name Date
Nos. Nos.
Writ Petition No.26956 of 2022
25.04.2023 2(9), 5
1. (Concord Tieup Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State 1-5
and 6
of Madhya Pradesh and another)
Writ Petition No.26951 of 2022
2(9) and
2. (Agarwal Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of 25.04.2023 6-10
Madhya Pradesh and another)
Writ Petition No.617 of 2023 (M/s
3. Ultratech Cement Limited Vs. Union of 19.01.2023 2 and 6 11-14
India and others)
Writ Tax No.1029 of 2021 (Bharat Mint
5, 6, 9, 12,
4. and Allied Chemicals Vs. Commissioner 04.03.2022 15-22
13 and 15
Commercial Tax and 2 others)
5 WP-18152-2023
5. M/s Mohan Agencies Vs. State of U.P. 13.02.2023 4, 6 and 8 23-25
and another
Writ Tax No.981 of 2023 (M/s B.L.
6. Pahariya Medical Store Vs. State of U.P. 22.08.2023 5 and 7 26-27
and another)
Writ Tax No.998 of 2023 (M/s Bajrang
7. Building Material Vs. State of U.P. and 2 22.08.2023 3, 4 and 7 28-30
others)
Writ Tax No.1010 of 2023 (M/s Dana
8. 25.08.2023 4 and 5 31-32
Pani Vs. State of U.P. and another)
R/Special Civil Application No.14347 of
2022 (M/s Hitech Sweet Water 3.4, 4.1
9. 06.10.2022 33-37
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of and 5
Gujarat)
10. Writ Petition No.7584 of 2021 06.04.2021 4 and 5 38-40
MAT No.548 of 2023 (Subodh Kumar
11. 11.05.2023 5 41-45
Mondal Vs. State of Bengal and Ors.)
Writ Petition No.18582 of 2021
6, 7, 9, 10
12. (Ayyanar Steel Trading Vs. State Tax 06.09.2021 46-52
and 11
Officer and another)
R/Special Civil Application No.11332 of
2022 with R/Special Civil Application
13. No.11335 of 2022 (Graziano 23.06.2022 11 and 13 53-60
Transmission India Private Limited Vs.
State of Gujarat)
8, 14, 16,
W.P. (C) No.6673 of 2021 and CM
17, 18, 19,
14. APPL. No.21011 of 2021 (M/s Jupiter 24.07.2023 61-78
22, 24 and
Exports Vs. Commissioner of GST)
W.P. No.16131 of 2020 (M/s Shri
15. Shyam Baba Edible Oils Vs. The Chief 19.11.2020 5, 6 and 8 79-83
Commissioner and another)
Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX
Government of India Ministry of Finance 14.3 and 84-
16. 10.03.2017
Department of Revenue Central Board of 14.4 111
Excise and Customs
Internal
Supreme Court of India Appeal (Civil)
Page 112-
17. No.7539 of 1999 (Canara Bank and Ors. 12.03.2003
No.10, 127
Vs. Debasis Das and Ors.)
last para
4, 6(d)(e) 128-
18. Circular No.12/2022 26.09.2022
and (g) 133
6 WP-18152-2023
Respondent's Submissions
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the
aforesaid submissions by arguing that the writ petition is not maintainable as
the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Since the said remedy has become time-barred and the petitioner was
required to deposit the 10% of the demand, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition, which is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. There is no
violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act and Rule 142 of the GST Rules. In
this case, the opportunity of a hearing was granted to the petitioner, but he
did not avail himself. Hence, he cannot blame the authorities for not
providing him with a personal hearing.
Appreciation & Conclusions
9. The petitioner was initially served with the GST ASMT-10 dated
20.04.2022, pointing out certain discrepancies in the GST paid in the FY
2020-2021. According to the petitioner, he submitted a chart (Annexure P/3),
but there is no receipt/acknowledgement in it. Thereafter, the petitioner was
served a show-cause notice dated 07.06.2022. This notice specifically
provides that it is issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, calling upon the
petitioner to submit a reply on 06.07.2022. The petitioner is not disputing the
fact of receiving this notice, but the petitioner is not treating this notice as
under Section 73 of the GST Act. Even if that be so, the petitioner was
required to file a reply to the said notice challenging its validity before the
authority that issued the same.
7 WP-18152-2023
10. So far, the question of non-grant of personal hearing is
concerned, as per the language of 75(4) of the GST Act, the petitioner was
required to demand the personal hearing. The petitioner, who did not submit
a reply to the show-cause notice, cannot expect the opportunity of a personal
hearing will be given to him. The opportunity of a personal hearing is always
granted by the competent authority upon request. Since the petitioner did not
file a reply to the show cause notice, the proper officer cannot assume that
the petitioner is interested in availing a personal hearing. Hence, there is no
violation of the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
11. The petitioner is also not disputing the Order-in-original passed
by the authority. The order describes that it is a summary order issued under
Section 73 of the GST Act in DRC-07. Therefore, all these legal grounds
taken in the petition are liable to be raised by way of an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. But for one year, the petitioner did not prefer any
appeal, and once the limitation to file an appeal had expired, and beyond
that, it is not condonable, hence the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of a writ petition challenging the order on merit as well as on technical
grounds.
12. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained in a situation
where the petitioner did not choose to participate in the inquiry u/s 73 of the
GST Act by filing a reply; secondly, he cannot allege a violation of
principles of natural justice because the opportunity of a personal hearing
8 WP-18152-2023
was not granted because he did not demand specifically after filing reply to
the show cause notice. Had he submitted a reply and demanded the
opportunity of hearing, and if the authority fails to give, then certainly the
writ petition would have been liable to be entertained, and the matter could
have been remanded. The judgments on which the petitioners are placing
reliance on a different set of circumstances where the reply to the show cause
notice was filed, but an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the
assessee therein, but in the present case, the petitioner did not even respond
to the show cause notice by filing a reply and claiming a personal hearing. If
the reply itself has not been filed, then there cannot be oral submissions to
defend a case.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner
may prefer an appeal before the appellate authority along with an application
for condonation of delay before the Appellate Authority, after which the
petitioner will have a remedy to approach the GST tribunal.
14. In view of the above order, the other writ petitions i.e., W.P.
No.18151/2023, W.P. No.18152/2023 and W.P. No.20383/2023, are also
dismissed.
15. A copy of this order be also placed in W.P. No.18151/2023,
W.P. No.18152/2023 and W.P. No.20383/2023.
9 WP-18152-2023
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
