M/S Sant Motocorp vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sant Motocorp, challenged an order dated October 12, 2023, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Bilaspur. This order dismissed the petitioner's first appeal filed under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The original demand order, imposing tax, interest, and penalty for the period April 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017, was passed by the State Tax Officer, Korba Circle, on February 24, 2023. The petitioner filed this writ petition because, although the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has been notified in Chhattisgarh, its president and members have not yet been appointed, preventing the filing of a second appeal. The petitioner also stated they had not deposited the statutory amount required for filing an appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as soon as its president or state president enters office. The Court directed that the statutory stay, as provided under Section 112(9) of the Act, would remain in operation until the appeal is decided on its merits. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation after the Tribunal becomes functional, the State would be at liberty to proceed with the recovery of taxes, interest, and penalty. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that this order would not provide any relief if the petitioner had not deposited the required amount for filing the appeal, granting them 30 days to do so. The reasoning was based on the principle that a litigant should not be deprived of their statutory remedy due to administrative inaction in constituting the appellate tribunal, as observed in the cited High Court judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be granted relief by this Court in the form of permission to file an appeal before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at a later date, given the non-constitution of the Tribunal in Chhattisgarh? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the non-appointment of the President and members of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, they are unable to avail the statutory remedy of a second appeal. They relied on the State Government's notification dated December 5, 2019, which extended the period of limitation in such circumstances. The petitioner cited judgments from the Patna High Court in M/s Cohesive Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and others and the Bombay High Court in Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and others, which allowed similar petitions by directing parties to file appeals once the Tribunal is constituted. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's preposition regarding the inability to file an appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the applicability of the directions given in similar cases by other High Courts.