Tax Recovery Halted: Statutory Stay Granted Pending Tribunal Constitution Under B.G.S.T. Act Section Provisions

The HC addressed a writ petition challenging tax recovery due to non-constitution of the Tribunal under the B.G.S.T. Act. The court granted relief by allowing statutory stay of tax recovery upon deposit of specified amount, directing the petitioner to file appeal once the Tribunal is constituted. The court emphasized preserving the petitioner's statutory remedy and ensuring fair procedural compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the non-constitution of the Tribunal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act), deprivation of statutory remedy of appeal, benefit of stay of recovery of tax amount, acknowledgment of non-constitution of the Tribunal by the State authorities, and the relief granted by the Court in similar cases.

Non-constitution of Tribunal and Deprivation of Statutory Remedy:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily desiring to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. However, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner was deprived of the 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 this fact 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.

Grant of Relief by the Court:
The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting certain reliefs to the petitioner. Firstly, subject to the deposit of a specified sum, the petitioner was extended the statutory benefit of stay 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. Additionally, the Court stated that the relief of stay, upon deposit of the statutory amount, cannot be open-ended and directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted and functional.

Further Directions and Compliance:
The Court further directed that if the petitioner complies with the order and pays the required amount, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The petitioner's counsel raised a concern regarding the deduction of more than 20% of the tax amount from the petitioner's account, to which the Court clarified that if such deduction is made, there would be no need for the petitioner to pay an additional 20%.

Conclusion:
With the above observations, directions, and liberty granted, the writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal by filing before the Tribunal once it is constituted. Failure to do so would give the respondent authorities the liberty to proceed further in accordance with the law.

---