M/S Mahamaya Medical And General Store vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahamaya Medical And General Store, filed an application for modification of a previous High Court order dated 28.08.2024. The original order had directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the liability imposed by an order dated 12.07.2022 and file an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. The petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal in Chhattisgarh had not yet started functioning, preventing them from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. They sought modification to allow filing within the statutory period from the date the Tribunal commences operations. The State's counsel had no objection to this modification.

Held

The Court held that the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal was not yet functioning. Consequently, the Court modified its previous order dated 28.08.2024. The modification stipulated that the petitioner shall file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within the statutory period of limitation from the date when the President or State President enters office of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, or when the process of filing commences there. This replaced the original direction to file within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court further directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the imposed liability within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the present order. The MCC was disposed of with this modification, and the modified order was to be treated as part of the original order dated 28.08.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should modify its previous order dated 28.08.2024 to extend the period for filing an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the Tribunal's non-functional status in Chhattisgarh? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of procedural directions in light of statutory impediments). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal had not commenced in the State, making it impossible to comply with the 30-day filing deadline. They requested the Court to permit filing the appeal within the statutory limitation period from the date the Tribunal becomes operational or starts accepting filings. They reiterated their readiness to deposit 20% of the imposed liability. Revenue/State's contention: The counsel for the State, based on instructions, acknowledged that the Tribunal was not yet functioning and stated they had no objection to the modification sought by the petitioner.