[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S The India Cements Limited Through ... vs The Union Of India on 11 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6545
1 WP-6656-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6656 of 2026
M/S THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SANJEEV KUMAR BOHRA
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Raichandani through VC with Ms.Dishi Shivpuriya - Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms.Smriti Razdan - Advocate for the respodent No.1
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.5,
whereby the demand alongwith penalty and interest has been confirmed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid order was never
communicated to the petitioner and was merely uploaded on the portal and the
petitioner came to know about the said order only on 06.01.2026. He further
argued that the said order has been passed without granting any opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner.
3. On being confronted with the availability of alternative and efficacious
remedy against the impugned order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6545
2 WP-6656-2026
Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short "the Act"), counsel for the petitioner argued that
his appeal may be dismissed treating to be barred by limitation. He further argued
that as per the provisions of sub-section 11 of Section 107 of the Act, the Appellate
Authority cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
4. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the
petitioner without availing the aforesaid remedy under Section 107 of the Act has
filed the present petition.
5. The relevant provisions of Section 107 (1) of the Act reads as under:-
Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority .- (1) Any person
aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or
the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory
Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority
may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed
within three months from the date on which the said decision
or order is communicated to such person.
6. Apparently, the aforesaid provision reads the limitation of three months
from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
However, at this stage, we do not consider it apposite to interpret the word
'communicated' u/S 107 of the Act as we are first considering the maintainability
of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy
of appeal. The other submission that the Appellate Authority cannot remand the
matter to the adjudicating authority, we find that wide power has been conferred
on the Appellate Authority to confirm, modify or annul the decision or the order
appealed.
7. In view of the aforesaid and considering the judgement passed in the case
o f Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chabbil Dass Agarwal, [2014
(1) SCC 603], where it has been clearly laid down that when a statutory forum
is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be
entertained ignoring such statutory dispensation. The Coordinate Bench of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6545
3 WP-6656-2026
Court has also taken a view in the case of Neeraj Mandloi Vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal and Others (W. P. No.1098/2017 decided
on 25.01.2017) that in cases of tax liability matter, the writ petition be not
entertained normally when the alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is
available. The Apex Court in the case of Zulfikar Ali Vs. Vice Chairman, Jammu
Development Authority & others (SLP (C) No.5586/2022) and also in a recent
judgement in the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and Others, [2025
SCC OnLine SC 2510] has affirmed the same view.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the
present petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to avail the alternative efficacious remedy, in accordance with law and
he will have liberty to raise all grounds which are raised in the present petition.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
