Tribunal Absence Does Not Bar Tax Recovery Stay, Statutory Remedy Upheld Under Section 112

HC ruled that despite the non-constitution of the Tribunal under B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner's statutory remedy under Section 112 cannot be denied. The court directed that upon depositing a specified sum, the petitioner shall receive tax recovery stay benefits. The ruling mandates the petitioner to file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted, with a clear warning that non-compliance would allow authorities to proceed legally.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Non-constitution of the Tribunal preventing the petitioner from availing statutory remedy under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act.
2. Deprivation of benefit of stay of recovery of tax amount due to non-constitution of the Tribunal.
3. Notification issued by the respondent State authorities regarding the period of limitation for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Non-constitution of the Tribunal preventing the petitioner from availing statutory remedy under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to appeal against an impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. However, the non-constitution of the Tribunal hindered the petitioner from exercising the statutory remedy provided under sub-sections (8) and (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act.

Issue 2: Deprivation of benefit of stay of recovery of tax amount due to non-constitution of the Tribunal:
The petitioner was also denied the benefit of stay of recovery of the remaining tax amount as per Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act because of the absence of the Tribunal. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. Therefore, the recovery of the balance amount was deemed to be stayed upon the deposit of a specified sum.

Issue 3: Notification issued by the respondent State authorities regarding the period of limitation for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal:
The respondent State authorities issued a notification to address the issue of non-constitution of the Tribunal. The notification clarified that the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 would commence only after the President or State President of the Tribunal enters office post its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act.

Conclusion:
The Court directed that the petitioner, upon depositing a specified sum, should be granted the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112 (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. It was emphasized that the relief of stay should not be open-ended, and the petitioner must file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. Failure to do so would allow the respondent authorities to proceed further in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions and observations.

---