Tax Recovery Halted: Petitioner Wins Partial Relief, Must Deposit 20% and File Appeal After Tribunal Establishment

HC granted partial relief in tax dispute where Tribunal was not constituted. Petitioner allowed to stay tax recovery by depositing 20% of disputed amount. Court directed petitioner to file appeal once Tribunal is established, with liberty to respondent authorities to proceed if appeal not filed within prescribed period.

---

---

Issues involved: Non-constitution of the Tribunal depriving petitioner of statutory remedy under B.G.S.T. Act, benefit of stay of recovery of tax, acknowledgment by respondent State authorities, disposal of writ petition.

Details of the judgment:

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner wanted 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 under sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act.

The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification for removal of difficulties, stating that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal shall start only after the Tribunal is constituted under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T. Act.

The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting certain reliefs to the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner was granted the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax upon depositing a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute. This benefit was extended under sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves.

Secondly, the Court mentioned that the relief of stay, upon deposit of the statutory amount, cannot be open-ended. The petitioner was required to file an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. The appeal needed to be filed observing the statutory requirements after the Tribunal comes into existence.

Lastly, if the petitioner chose not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal before the Tribunal within the specified period upon its constitution, the respondent authorities were given the liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.

With the above directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of by the Court.

---