Case Title: M/s Khalghat Sendhwa Tollways Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 25098 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 15 July 2025
Category: Input Tax Credit / Demand Confirmation / Alternative Remedy
Relevant Sections: Sections 50, 74, 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017; Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017
Facts (Para 1–3):
M/s Khalghat Sendhwa Tollways Pvt. Ltd., engaged in road construction and toll collection, was issued notices by the CGST Audit Commissionerate, Indore, for non-payment and short payment of GST for FY 2017–18 to 2019–20. The Superintendent, CGST, passed an Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2023, confirming multiple GST demands aggregating to ₹3,50,265/- with interest and penalty under Section 74 and 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The company filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order as being contrary to law and violative of natural justice.
Questions Before the Court (Para 4):
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 against an Order-in-Original confirming GST demand when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available.
Observations (Para 5–6):
The Court referred to Union of India v. Rajhans Impex Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 16 SCC 579], where the Supreme Court held that a writ petition against an Order-in-Original is not maintainable when an appeal is available unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental principles of justice.
In this case, the Bench noted that the petitioner did not raise any substantial or complex question of law warranting interference under Article 226. The grounds of violation of natural justice or procedural lapses could be adequately considered by the appellate authority.
Judgment (Para 7):
The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law, including compliance with pre-deposit requirements.
Summary of Cases Referred:
| Case Name | Citation | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Rajhans Impex Pvt. Ltd. | (2022) 16 SCC 579 | Maintainability of writ petition against Order-in-Original without exhausting appeal remedy | Supreme Court held writ not maintainable; directed to file appeal within prescribed time; limitation not to be raised if appeal filed within four weeks |
Between Fine Lines:
The ruling reinforces the consistent judicial stance that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 when a statutory appeal is available. For taxpayers, it signals that challenges to GST demand orders must first pass through the appellate mechanism under Section 107 rather than resorting directly to writ jurisdiction. Procedural or factual grievances must be addressed at the appellate stage before invoking writ remedies.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”