The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand order as misconceived, holding that where the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of first appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable, particularly when it has been filed more than a year after the impugned order. The ruling, by Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi in Writ Petition No. 15870 of 2026 (Maple Overseas Trade Pvt. Ltd., decided 02.09.2026), however grants the petitioner liberty to file an appeal and directs that the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition shall be excluded from the period of limitation.
The petitioner had challenged an order dated 27.01.2025 raising a total demand of Rs. 2,13,84,480 under various heads on account of alleged discrepancy in ITC between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, contending that the show cause notices were uploaded only on the GST portal without effective service through email or physical mode. The petitioner relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Singh Construction v. State of M.P. (WP No. 11483/2025). However, the court distinguished that case on the ground that the petitioner therein had already availed the first appeal which was dismissed on the ground of delay, and had approached the court only prior to filing the second appeal, whereas in the present case the petitioner had not filed any appeal at all.
The court observed that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 when the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy and the petition itself had been filed more than a year after the impugned order. The petition was dismissed but with liberty to prefer an appeal as provided under law, with the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition to be excluded from the limitation period. The court clarified that it had not reflected upon the merits.
- 2026-juristway.com-1233-HC(Madhya Pradesh)-GST | High Court of Madhya Pradesh | Writ Petition No. 15870 of 2026 | 02.09.2026