Statutory stay under Bihar GST survives non-constitution of Tribunal, with deposit-based protection and release of bank attachment.

Statutory stay of recovery under the Bihar GST appellate scheme cannot be denied merely because the Tribunal is not yet constituted, where the prescribed deposit has been made, including the amount already deposited under the earlier appeal provision. The interim protection remains conditional on filing the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted and its President or State President assumes office, so that recovery is not suspended indefinitely. On compliance with the deposit condition, attachment of the taxpayer's bank account pursuant to the demand must be released.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory stay of recovery under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act on making the prescribed deposit despite non-constitution of the Tribunal; whether the petitioner was required to file the appeal after the Tribunal becomes functional; and whether bank account attachment was liable to be released on compliance.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory stay of recovery under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act on making the prescribed deposit despite non-constitution of the Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 could not be effectively availed because the Tribunal had not been constituted. The Court noted the legislative and administrative framework under Section 112 and the removal of difficulty order issued under Section 172, and held that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of stay merely because the Tribunal was not functional. The stay was linked to the statutory deposit requirement, including the amount already deposited under Section 107(6).

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the statutory benefit of stay of recovery on deposit of 20% of the remaining tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited under Section 107(6).

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was required to file the appeal after the Tribunal becomes functional.

Analysis: The Court balanced the grant of interim statutory protection with the need to prevent an indefinite suspension of recovery. It therefore directed that the appeal under Section 112 must be filed once the Tribunal is constituted and the President or State President assumes office, in accordance with the statutory requirements then applicable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was required to file the appeal before the Tribunal after its constitution and commencement of functioning.

Issue (iii): Whether bank account attachment was liable to be released on compliance.

Analysis: The Court directed that once the prescribed 20% deposit was made, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account made pursuant to the demand could not continue.

Conclusion: The bank attachment was directed to be released upon compliance with the deposit condition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with conditional protection against recovery, a direction to pursue the statutory appeal when the Tribunal becomes functional, and consequential relief regarding release of attachment upon deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate Tribunal under the GST enactment is not constituted, the assessee cannot be deprived of the statutory stay attached to the appeal remedy if the prescribed deposit is made, but such protection may be made conditional upon filing the appeal once the Tribunal becomes functional.

---