Stay on Tax Recovery Granted; Appeal Required Once Tribunal Formed, Ensuring Fairness in Absence of Appellate Tribunal.

The HC ruled that due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the CGST/OGST Act, the petitioner was deprived of the statutory appeal remedy. The Court granted a stay on recovery, conditional on a specified deposit, and mandated filing an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted. Failure to appeal would allow authorities to proceed legally. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives, ensuring the petitioner is not disadvantaged by the Tribunal's absence.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appealability of the order under the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 due to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation and application of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.
3. Statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act.
4. Requirement for filing 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.

The High Court addressed the issue of appealability of an order under the CGST/OGST Act, 2017 due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal. It was acknowledged that the petitioner was deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal and the corresponding benefits due to the absence of the Tribunal as required under section 109 of the Acts. The Government of India issued the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, providing clarification on the calculation of time periods for filing appeals in such cases. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued a circular further explaining the procedure in cases where the Appellate Tribunal had not been constituted. The Court considered these orders and circulars in deciding the case.

Regarding the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act, the Court held that the petitioner should be granted the benefit of stay subject to the deposit of a specified sum. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the authorities. It was ruled that the recovery of the balance amount should be stayed until further notice.

The Court also addressed the requirement for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act once the Tribunal is constituted. It was decided that the petitioner must file the appeal observing the statutory requirements after the Tribunal becomes functional. Failure to do so would allow the authorities to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.

In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST/OGST Act before the Tribunal within the specified period, the authorities would be permitted to take further action in the matter. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions and observations, providing an urgent certified copy of the order.

---