1 2026:CGHC:14891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 159 of 2025 1 - M/s. Budhia Auto T.P. Nagar, Korba, A Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Mr. Vijay Kumar Budhia, Aged About 63 Years, Son Of Late Shyam Sundar Budhia, Resident Of A-1, Shiv Shiva Mandir Marg, Near Agroha Society, Near Maa Sharda Hospital, Raipura, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary G S T- Commercial Tax Department-Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, Headquarter Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Office Of Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Commercial Tax Department G S T Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division No.-2, Office Of Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division No. 2, 3rd Floor, G S T Bhavan,commercial Tax Department, Yadunandan Nagar,tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 495223 4 - Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Office Of Commissioner, State Tax Chhattisgarh, Raipur Commercial Tax Department G S T Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : -2- “10.1 Quashing/setting-aside Annexure "P/3" and Annexure "P/5". 10.2 As a sequitur to clause 10.1, directing the Respondent No.3 to dispose of the Application i.e. Annexure "P/4" for setting aside ex-parte assessment order under section 36 of the Act of 2005 dated 11-03- 2025, afresh on merits. 10.3. As a sequitur to clause 10.1 and 10.2 staying effect of the operation of the assessment order dated 29-12-2023 i.e. Annexure "P/1" for the Assessment period 2013-2014 till the disposal of application for setting aside the same. 10.4 Grant any other relief(s) and/or pass any such order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. An Order under Section 21(5) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act of 2005’) was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) on 29.12.2023. An application under Section 36(a) of the Act of 2005 was moved on 29.01.2024, which was rejected by the said authority vide order dated 22.07.2024. A repeat application was moved under Section 36 of the Act of 2005 on 11.03.2025, which has been rejected vide order dated 28.03.2025. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/5). 4. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petition has been preferred at a belated stage but delay part has been explained properly in application for condonation of delay. He would further submit that the last order was passed by the respondent authorities on 28.03.2025 thereafter, the petitioner applied for certified copy on 01.09.2025 3 and it was delivered on 12.09.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. He would contend that opportunity of hearing was not provided by the Assistant Commissioner and an ex-parte order was passed. He would pray to set aside the orders dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P/3) and 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/5). 5. On the other hand, Ms. Jain, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose submissions. She would submit that the prescribed period of limitation to move an application under Section 36(a) of the Act of 2005 is 30 days, whereas, first application was moved by the petitioner after expiry of 30 days. She would further submit that subsequent application was not maintainable before the authority concerned but the petitioner again moved application which has rightly been rejected by the said authority. She would contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The original order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.12.2023. The petitioner moved an application under Section 36(a) of the Act of 2005 after expiry of 30 days and therefore, it was rejected as deficiencies were detected by the said authority during course of insepction. The subsequent application was moved in the month of March, 2025 and same has been rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 28.03.2025 on the ground that subsequent application was not maintainable. 8. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that there is -4- no delay in filing writ petition. A separate application has been moved for condonation of delay. It is a well-settled principle of law that where a Court exercises its original jurisdiction, an application for condonation of delay would not be maintainable, therefore, the application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. The petitioner failed to explain the sufficient reasons for delay. 9. The last order was passed on 28.03.2025, whereas, this petition has been preferred on 10.10.2025. Further, the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 22.07.2024. Immediately after its pronouncement, the petitioner moved subsequent application and after its rejection, he has approached this Court. 10.Taking into consideration the facts-discussed above and the reasons assigned in the impugned orders, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha