Tax Recovery Halted: Statutory Stay Granted Due to Absent Appellate Tribunal, 20% Deposit Required for Procedural Compliance

HC ruled that due to non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal under Bihar GST Act, petitioner was granted statutory stay of tax recovery. Stay was conditional on depositing 20% of disputed tax amount. Petitioner must file appeal once Tribunal becomes functional, or authorities can proceed legally. Notification addressed limitation period concerns, ensuring procedural fairness.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act.
2. Deprivation of statutory remedy of appeal and stay of recovery of tax amount.
3. Notification by State authorities for removal of difficulties regarding the period of limitation for preferring an appeal.
4. Granting of statutory benefit of stay and conditions for availing the remedy of appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). The petitioner desired to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an impugned order before the Tribunal but was unable to do so because of the non-constitution of the Tribunal. This lack of constitution deprived the petitioner of the statutory remedies under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, including the benefit of stay of recovery of tax amount. The respondent State authorities acknowledged this issue and issued a notification to address the difficulties faced, stating that the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Tribunal would start only after the Tribunal's constitution.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting certain reliefs to the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner was granted the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, subject to depositing a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining tax amount in dispute. This stay was deemed necessary as the Tribunal was not constituted by the respondents themselves. The Court emphasized that the relief of stay could not be open-ended and required the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal became functional. Failure to file the appeal within the specified period would allow the respondent authorities to proceed further in accordance with the law. Additionally, if the conditions were met, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be released. The judgment provided clarity on the process to be followed in light of the non-constitution of the Tribunal, ensuring that the petitioner could avail the statutory remedies once the Tribunal was established.

---