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

Facts

The applicant, M/s Mahamaya Medical And General Store, through its proprietor Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, filed an application for modification of a previous order dated 28.08.2024. In that order, the High Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the imposed liability and file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. The applicant stated that the Appellate Tribunal in Chhattisgarh had not yet started functioning, preventing them from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. They were ready to deposit the 20% liability. The State's counsel, upon instruction, had no objection to the 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 allows the petitioner to 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 appeals commences there, instead of the previously stipulated 30 days from the date of the order. The petitioner was also directed to deposit 20% of the imposed liability within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the current order. The rest of the previous order remains intact.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should modify its previous order dated 28.08.2024 to extend the time for filing an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, given that the tribunal is not yet functioning in the State of Chhattisgarh. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the non-functioning of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, they are unable to file their appeal within the 30-day period stipulated by the Court's previous order. They sought modification to allow filing the appeal within the statutory period from the date the tribunal commences functioning or the process for filing appeals begins. They reiterated their readiness to deposit 20% of the imposed liability. Revenue/State's contention: The State's counsel acknowledged that the tribunal was not yet functioning and stated they had no objection to the modification sought by the petitioner.