Taxpayer Wins Temporary Relief from GST Recovery Notices, Suspension Granted Pending Tribunal Formation and Appeal Process

HC granted relief to taxpayer challenging GST recovery notices by staying implementation pending appeal or writ petition. The court noted absence of GST Tribunal and referenced Bombay HC precedent protecting taxpayer interests. Recovery notices were kept in abeyance, with petitioner required to file appeals within 30 days if Tribunal is constituted, subject to further judicial review.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging recovery notices based on adverse Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal, Deposit requirement under Section 112 of the GST Act, Interpretation of the decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal, Stay on recovery notices pending appeal or writ petitions.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged recovery notices issued by the respondent based on adverse Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. The Orders-in-Original were passed against the petitioner for different assessment years, and subsequent appeals before the Appellate Authority were dismissed, leading to the issuance of recovery notices. The petitioner contended that no GST Tribunal had been constituted, and therefore, approached the High Court seeking relief. The petitioner had already deposited more than 20% of the disputed tax amount as required under Section 112 of the GST Act.

The court considered the petitioner's argument and referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The Bombay High Court's decision emphasized that appealable orders should not be implemented until the Tribunal becomes functional to avoid prejudicing taxpayers. The court decided to keep the impugned recovery notices in abeyance, provided the petitioner either filed appeals before the GST Tribunal within 30 days if constituted, or filed writ petitions challenging the Orders-in-Appeal and Orders-in-Original. The court stayed the recovery notices pending further orders in the appeals or writ petitions, granting relief to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, keeping the impugned recovery notices stayed. The court did not impose any costs on the parties and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions. The judgment provided a temporary reprieve to the petitioner pending the outcome of appeals before the GST Tribunal or through writ petitions challenging the adverse orders.

---