M/S Sant Gases vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sant Gases, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging an order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Korba Circle. The petitioner sought exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order, submitting an attested true copy instead. The petitioner also stated that 20% of the disputed tax amount had been deposited. The core of the petition revolved around an issue previously considered by the Court in a similar case, M/s Sant Motocorp Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WPT No. 80/2024). The respondents, represented by the State, agreed that the issue was identical and should be disposed of in light of the previous order.

Held

The Court allowed the application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.10.2023. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its previous order dated 09.05.2024 in WPT No. 80/2024 (M/s Sant Motocorp Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.). In that prior order, the Court had directed that as soon as the President or State President enters office of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner would file an appeal, which would be decided on its merits. The statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the Act of 2017 would remain in operation until the decision of such appeal. If the appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation period, the State would be at liberty to proceed for recovery. The Court also clarified that if the amount required for filing the appeal had not been deposited, the order would not offer any relief, and the petitioner was granted 30 days to make the deposit. The present judgment reiterated this liberty to file a statutory appeal under the Act of 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.10.2023, given that an attested true copy has been filed and 20% of the disputed tax amount has been deposited? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are not in possession of the certified copy and have filed an attested true copy. They also highlighted that 20% of the disputed tax amount has been deposited. Furthermore, they contended that the issue involved is identical to one already decided by the Court in M/s Sant Motocorp (Supra), and therefore, the present petition should be disposed of in terms of that order. Revenue's Argument: The State's counsel agreed that the issue involved in the present petition is identical to the issue decided by the Court in WPT No. 80/2024 in the case of M/s Sant Motocorp (Supra) and submitted that this petition may also be disposed of in light of that order.