[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vsr Engineers And Consultants Through ... vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
1 WP-6478-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6478 of 2026
VSR ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakshit Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Himanshu Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Shri Praveen N. Surange, Advocate
for respondent No.2 on advance notice.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
This writ petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
against the order dated 5/2/2026 passed by Superintendent (GST), Range Morena,
by which the registration of the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the Act") has been cancelled.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in the show cause notice it
was alleged that petitioner is issuing false/fake invoices/bills without supply of
goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act or the rules made
thereunder and has availed ITC in violation of the provisions of section 16 of the
Act or the rules made thereunder. It is fairly conceded that the order under
challenge is an appealable order, but learned counsel submitted that since the
appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the matter, therefore the
alternative remedy of appeal is not efficacious and, thus this Court should
entertain its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
2 WP-6478-2026
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that the allegations
against the petitioner are that he was issuing false/fake invoices without supply of
goods/service, which is a highly disputed question of fact. Petitioner in his reply
to the show cause notice had not supplied any document to show that he was
supplying goods or services and, therefore, the vague reply given by petitioner did
not warrant any further inquiry by the assessing Authority and, thus counsel for
respondent supported the order passed by the Authority.
4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is well established principle of law that High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should
not bypass the alternative remedy except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore,
the only question for consideration is as to whether petitioner has made out any
exceptional circumstance requiring this Court to bypass the alternative remedy
and to entertain this petition?
6. By referring to section 107(11) of the Act, it is submitted by counsel for
petitioner that since the appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to remand the
matter and since the order of cancellation has been passed without conducting any
inquiry, therefore, the remedy of appeal cannot be said to be an effective and
efficacious remedy, and thus it is submitted that there is an exceptional
circumstance which may convince this Court for entertaining its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.
7. Considered the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the appellant.
8. Section 107(11) of the Act reads as under:-
107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.
"(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry
as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
3 WP-6478-2026
confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed
against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority
that passed the said decision or order:
Provided that an order enhancing any fee or penalty or fine in lieu of
confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value or reducing the
amount of refund or input tax credit shall not be passed unless the
appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause
against the proposed order:
Provided further that where the Appellate Authority is of the opinion
that any tax has not been paid or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or
where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, no order
requiring the appellant to pay such tax or input tax credit shall be
passed unless the appellant is given notice to show cause against the
proposed order and the order is passed within the time limit specified
under section 73 or section 74 or section 74A.
9. From plain reading of this section, it is clear that the appellate Authority
has a jurisdiction to make further inquiry as may be necessary before passing such
order as it thinks just and proper for confirming, modifying or annulling the
decision or order appealed against. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the appellate
Authority is much wider than the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227
of Constitution of India. This Court cannot embark upon an inquiry to adjudicate
the disputed question of fact. Even if petitioner is of the view that an inquiry was
required on the part of the assessing Authority before passing an order of
cancellation of registration, still the same can be done by the appellate Authority
and the appellate Authority is not required to remand the matter for the said
purpose. Only in view of the wider powers given to the appellate Authority, it has
been mentioned in subsection 11 of section 107 of the Act that the appellate
Authority would not remand the matter.
10. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is the case
of petitioner that his valuable right of principles of natural justice was violated,
therefore, this Court should entertain this writ petition by bypassing the statutory
remedy of appeal.
11. Considered the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
4 WP-6478-2026
petitioner.
12. The law relating to violation of principle of natural justice has
undergone a change and unless and until a person claiming violation of principles
of natural justice points out the prejudice caused to him, he cannot succeed merely
by saying that his valuable right of natural justice/ audi alteram partem was
violated by the Authority concerned. As already pointed out, petitioner has not
filed any document before this Court to show that he was actually running his
business. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner has failed to
point out any prejudice which has been caused to him even if petitioner is of the
view that his valuable right of natural justice was violated. Therefore, the
contention of counsel for petitioner that this Court should bypass the statutory
remedy of appeal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot
be accepted.
13. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioner that in fact the
documents which were demanded by the petitioner were not supplied by the
department, therefore, his valuable right to defend himself was grossly violated.
14. Considered the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
15. The allegations against the petitioner are that he is issuing invoices or
bills without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of
the Act or the rules made thereunder. Therefore, all the documents to show that
petitioner was/is in active business and was/is issuing the invoices as per the
business done by him are available with the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner did
not file any document before the assessing Authority to show that he was or is in
active business and he is not issuing any fake/false invoice/bill. It is a well
established principle of law that if a person is in possession of best evidence and if
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
5 WP-6478-2026
he decides to withhold the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn against
him. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that department should have supplied
documents to him is nothing but an attempt to wriggle out of the allegations made
by the department against the petitioner. In fact, burden is on the petitioner to
supply all the documents to show that he was or is in active business and he has
never issued any fake/false invoice/bill.
16. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that no prejudice was
caused to the petitioner even in case if any document which was demanded by him
was not supplied by the department. It is made clear that non-supply of any
document would not make the impugned order vulnerable, but the petitioner has
to prove that the documents which were necessary to put forward his defence were
not supplied. As already pointed out, all the best evidence is in possession of the
petitioner and it is the petitioner who is withholding the same. Therefore, it cannot
be said that any violation of principles of natural justice was done by the
department
17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
since highly disputed question of facts are involved, specifically when the
petitioner has not filed any document before this Court to rebut the allegations
made in the show cause notice and in view of the wider powers of the appellate
Authority, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance for
bypassing the alternative remedy of appeal. Accordingly, this Court is of
considered opinion that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy available
to him under section 107(11) of the Act.
18. With aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed. However, by way of
abundant caution, it is mentioned that this Court has not considered the merits of
the case and has heard counsel for petitioner as well as respondent only on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6633
6 WP-6478-2026
question of availability of alternative remedy. If any appeal is filed, then the
appellate Authority shall decide the appeal strictly in accordance with the material
which is placed before it without getting influenced or prejudiced by dismissal of
this petition.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
