CGHC010267042026 2026:CGHC:31102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 663 of 2026 1 - M/s Re Sustainability Limited Through Rajsesh Bamaniya Deputy Gereral Manager, 1st Floor Mishra Bada, Tatyapara Chowk Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Jurisdiction Raipur- 2, Raipur Division, Chhattisgarh State/ Ut, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant Mr. Venkat Prasad, Advocate along with Ms. Anjali Lakhwani, Advocate For Non-applicant Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 22.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. This MCC application has been filed seeking recall/modification of order dated 23.06.2026 passed in WPT No.214 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the counsel for the applicant could not appear on the date of hearing, i.e., 23.06.2026, as no allotment message intimating the listing of the matter was received by him. He would contend that non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional and he has a good case on merits. He would further contend that the order impugned passed by authorities was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He would pray for recall of order dated 23.06.2026, thereby restoring WPT No. 214 of 2024 to its original number. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would contend that writ petition was dismissed, as there was efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the applicant to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’). It is contended that the application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard. 6. Perusal of the order passed in WPT No.214 of 2024 dated 23.06.2026 would reveal that no one appeared in two rounds for the applicant. The order under challenge was appealable according to the provisions of Section 107 of the Act of 2017. As there was efficacious alternative remedy available to the applicant, therefore, writ petition was dismissed and liberty was also granted to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days. 7. The applicant has filed this MCC for recall of order dated 23.06.2026. 8. According to Rule 140 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Rules 2007, a MCC application can be preferred for restoration, modification or classification in a decided case. The applicant has filed this application for recall of order and thus, the application is not maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed on account of availability of alternative remedy. 9. In the result, the MCC application fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha