No Review Of Writ When GSTAT Appeal Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court

In a case involving bogus invoicing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 January reiterated that when an appellate remedy is available before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), review of an earlier order which declined a writ petition was not warranted.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a review petition against its 5 August 2025 decision, which had relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before GSTAT.

The Bench found no ground to review the earlier order, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 (providing for appeals against orders passed by GST authorities). The Court directed that appeals could be filed within 30 days of the GSTAT becoming operational.

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled in 2024 after it was found that it had been found issuing bogus invoices, generating e-way bills without actual goods movement. He filed a writ petition challenging two orders: first, the rejection of its request to restore cancelled GST registration, and second, the dismissal of its appeal against that rejection. The petition was dismissed on 5 August 2025, with the Court granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the GSTAT within 30 days of its commencement.

The petitioner then filed a Review Petition seeking to recall the August 5 order. The petitioner argued that the GST Tribunal was not yet fully functional (lacking technical members) and that the business could not run without a GST registration.

The High Court noted that the GSTAT was soon to be operational and observed:

“The Tribunal is going to be started soon. At some places the filing has also been started. In the official website of the GST Tribunal advisory for e-filing has been uploaded. The site is also showing pendency of 3290 total registered cases and 262 e-filed appeals”

The Bench dismissed the review petition, instructing the petitioner to obtain a fresh registration and confirmed that relief on limitation would be available if an appeal was filed within 30 days from the commencement of GSTAT.

Similarly, the Orissa High Court has also declined to entertain writ petitions where a statutory appellate remedy exists and has not been exhausted.

Click here to read the order.

For Petitioner: Advocate Aditya Goyal

For Respondent: Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi