Petitioner gets statutory stay benefits under Section 112(9) despite non-constitution of Tribunal under BGST Act

The Patna HC disposed of a writ petition challenging tax recovery proceedings under the BGST Act. The petitioner was deprived of statutory appeal remedy due to non-constitution of the Tribunal under Section 112. The court held that since authorities failed to constitute the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot be denied statutory stay benefits under Section 112(9) upon depositing 20% of disputed tax amount. Following precedent in Angel Engicon case, the court stayed recovery proceedings and directed that appeal limitation period would commence only after Tribunal constitution and President taking office. The petition was disposed of with conditions requiring verification of required deposit amount.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity and legality of various orders related to GST, transitional credit, recovery notices, and coercive actions. The petitioner also seeks clarification and direction on the transition of tax credits under different Acts to the GST regime.

Validity and legality of orders:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash and set aside impugned orders-in-appeal, order-in-original, and recovery notice related to GST. The petitioner challenges the validity and legality of these orders and seeks relief through appropriate writs or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Transition of tax credits to GST regime:
The petitioner requests the court to read down the provisions of Section 140(1) to allow the transition of tax credits deducted under a previous Act to the GST regime. Specifically, the petitioner seeks clarification that tax deducted under Section 41 of the BVAT Act and carried forward under the VAT return can be transitioned to the GST regime.

Availment of transitional credit:
The petitioner asserts that they have correctly availed transitional credit of tax deducted under Section 41 of the BVAT Act. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or mandamus to confirm the correct availing of transitional credit and prevent any coercive action or recovery based on the impugned orders.

Stay of recovery and coercive actions:
The petitioner requests a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive action or recovery of transitional credit, interest, and penalty based on the impugned orders. The petitioner seeks a stay on any such actions pending the disposal of the petition to safeguard their interests.

Statutory remedy of appeal and non-constitution of Tribunal:
Due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. The court acknowledges this issue and provides directions to ensure the petitioner's rights are protected, including the deposit of a specific amount for the benefit of stay on recovery.

Disposition of the writ petition:
The court disposes of the writ petition with certain observations and directions, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. The court provides specific terms for extending the statutory benefit of stay on recovery and outlines the consequences of not availing the remedy of appeal within the specified period.

Additional facts and disposition:
The court notes the petitioner's compliance with earlier orders regarding the deposit of a specific amount. Based on this compliance, the court further extends the statutory benefit of stay on recovery and outlines the necessary steps for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal once the Tribunal is operational. The writ petition is disposed of with specific terms and directions for the petitioner's benefit.

---