Taxpayer Granted Conditional Appeal Relief Under Section 112 with 20% Tax Deposit Pending Tribunal Constitution

HC addressed the statutory remedy of appeal under CGST/OGST Act due to non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal. The court granted stay on condition of depositing 20% of disputed tax amount and directed petitioner to file appeal under Section 112 once Tribunal is constituted. The judgment provided clarity on appeal timelines and procedural requirements, ensuring statutory protection for the petitioner while maintaining legal compliance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Applicability of statutory remedy of Appeal under CGST/OGST Act due to non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 and Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST.
3. Granting of statutory benefit of stay to the petitioner.
4. Requirement for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act once the Tribunal is constituted.
5. Consequences if the petitioner does not avail the remedy of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the statutory remedy of Appeal under the CGST/OGST Act being affected by the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was deprived of the right to appeal due to the absence of the Tribunal, which is a prerequisite for appeals under Section 112 of the Acts. The Central Government issued the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 to clarify the timeline for filing appeals in such cases.

2. The Court considered the interpretation of the Removal of Difficulties Order and Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST, which provided guidelines for appeals in the absence of the Appellate Tribunal. The Order clarified that the appeal period would start from the date of communication of the order or the date the President or State President of the Tribunal enters office, whichever is later. The Circular emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of pending appeals without waiting for the Tribunal's constitution.

3. The judgment granted the petitioner the statutory benefit of stay on the condition of depositing a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining tax amount in dispute. This stay was deemed necessary to prevent the petitioner from being disadvantaged due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The order ensured that recovery actions were stayed until further notice.

4. It was decided that once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 of the Acts. The petitioner was required to observe the statutory requirements for filing the appeal after the Tribunal's establishment to facilitate its consideration. Failure to file the appeal within the specified period upon the Tribunal's constitution would allow the authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.

5. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the mentioned directions, observations, and liberty for the authorities to proceed if the petitioner chooses not to file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution. An urgent certified copy of the order was to be issued as per rules for compliance.

---