Writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy under Section 112(8) and (9) of BGST Act due to non-functioning Tribunal

Patna HC held that writ petition was maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy under Section 112(8) and (9) of B.G.S.T. Act due to non-constitution of the Tribunal. The Court noted that petitioner was prevented from availing stay of recovery benefit upon deposit of statutory amounts. Following precedent in Angel Engicon case, HC balanced equities by directing petitioner to file appeal once Tribunal becomes functional, while acknowledging petitioner had already deposited 20% of disputed tax amount under earlier court order. Petition disposed of with direction to approach Tribunal upon its constitution.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to seeking reliefs through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing of orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, restraining coercive actions for recovery of tax amounts, and interpretation of provisions regarding the exclusion of damage discount from the value of supply under the tax acts.

Relief sought and statutory remedy:
The petitioner sought various reliefs through the writ petition, including quashing of orders, restraining coercive actions for tax recovery, and interpretation of provisions related to damage discount exclusion under the tax acts. The petitioner desired to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner was deprived of this statutory remedy and the benefit of stay of recovery of tax amounts.

Non-constitution of the Tribunal and statutory benefits:
The petitioner was prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of tax amounts due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, as acknowledged by the respondent State authorities. The Court noted the difficulties arising from the non-constitution of the Tribunal and provided certain observations and directions in a related case, allowing the petitioner to make a deposit to avail the statutory benefit of stay under the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted to facilitate consideration of the appeal.

Disposition of the writ petition:
The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the facts and circumstances, subject to the verification of the deposit made by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the statutory benefit of stay under the B.G.S.T. Act, with the recovery of the balance amount deemed to be stayed. The Court highlighted the requirement for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted, failing which the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law. The writ application was disposed of with certain observations, directions, and liberty granted to the petitioner.

---