Tax Recovery Dispute Resolved: 20% Deposit Allows Stay Pending Appellate Tribunal Constitution Under B.G.S.T. Act Section

HC addressed a writ petition challenging tax recovery due to non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal under B.G.S.T. Act. The court granted relief by directing petitioner to deposit 20% of disputed tax amount, enabling stay of recovery. HC mandated appeal filing once Tribunal is constituted and emphasized balancing equitable interests while preserving statutory remedies for both parties.

---

---

Issues:
Non-constitution of the Tribunal affecting statutory remedy of appeal and stay of recovery under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking various reliefs, primarily to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner was unable to exercise the statutory remedy provided under Sub-Sections (8) and (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. This also prevented the petitioner from benefiting from the stay of recovery of the balance tax amount as per the provisions of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act upon depositing the required amounts.

The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification to address this issue. The notification specified that the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 would commence only after the President or State President of the Tribunal assumes office post its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T. Act. In light of these circumstances, the High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by providing specific directions to address the petitioner's concerns.

The Court ordered that, subject to the deposit of a specified sum equivalent to 20 percent of the remaining tax amount in dispute, the petitioner must be granted the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112 (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. This relief was granted to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of the benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing equities and stated that the relief of stay cannot be open-ended.

Furthermore, the Court directed that once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act to facilitate the consideration of the appeal. Failure to file the appeal within the specified period upon the Tribunal's constitution would allow the respondent authorities to proceed further in accordance with the law. Additionally, if the prescribed sum is paid as directed, any bank account attachment related to the tax demand shall be released, and the amount already deposited would be considered in determining the 20 percent payment required.

In conclusion, with the provided liberty, observations, and directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, ensuring that the petitioner is not unduly prejudiced by the non-constitution of the Tribunal while safeguarding the interests of both parties involved in the matter.

---