STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. ABIS EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.
MCC/636/2026 · 2026-07-13
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27002 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27002 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CGHC010260312026
2026:CGHC:29552
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 636 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary Government Of C.G., Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 01 Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant versus 1 - Abis Exports India Private Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under Indian Company Act 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Ib Corporate House, Village - Indamara, Post - Pendri, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Through Its Director, Mr. Anjum Alvi S/o Late Dr. Iqbal Alvi, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Basant, Post Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Non-applicant For Applicants/State Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Non-applicant Ms. Sakshi Chhabda, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14.07.2026
1. This application has been moved for extension of time.
2. It is submitted that vide order dated 13.04.2026 passed in WPT No.196 of 2025, the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the representations made by the petitioner in light of provisions contained in Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Hero Motocorp Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2023(1) SCC 386 and 60 days’ time was granted to take decision. He would contend that in such short span, it is not possible for the
respondent authorities to decide representations made by the petitioner. He would pray for extension of time.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant would oppose. Ms. Chabda would submit that bi-party order was passed and 60 days’ time was granted to decide pending representations of the non- applicant herein. She would further submit that sufficient reasons have not been assigned by the applicants for extension of time.
4. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Pandey and reasons assigned in the application, further 90 days’ time is granted to comply with the order dated 13.04.2026 passed in WPT No.196 of 2025.
5. Accordingly, MCC stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE Rekha