GST appellate remedy preserved when Tribunal is non-functional, with interim bank-account de-freezing and statutory stay maintained.
Where the GST Appellate Tribunal was not yet functional, the Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy after making the statutory deposit, despite the earlier appeal having been dismissed as time-barred, and directed that the appeal be decided strictly in accordance with law. It also ordered interim de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account, while making that relief subject to the appeal's final outcome. The statutory stay under the GST appellate framework was stated to continue until disposal of the proposed appeal; if the appeal is not filed within limitation or the required deposit is not made, the order would cease to operate and recovery could proceed according to law.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could be permitted to invoke the appellate remedy under the GST framework after constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, notwithstanding dismissal of the earlier appeal as time-barred. (ii) Whether the petitioner's frozen bank account deserved interim de-freezing, and what would be the effect of the statutory stay pending the proposed appeal.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could be permitted to invoke the appellate remedy under the GST framework after constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, notwithstanding dismissal of the earlier appeal as time-barred.
Analysis: The order took note of the clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and the earlier coordinate-bench view that, where the Appellate Tribunal under the GST enactment had not yet become operational, the period for filing an appeal under the relevant appellate provisions would effectively run from the date the President or State President entered office. In that background, the Court found it appropriate to permit the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy after making the statutory deposit, and directed that the appeal, once filed, be decided strictly in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to invoke the appellate remedy when the Tribunal becomes functional, subject to statutory deposit, and the appeal is to be decided on merits.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's frozen bank account deserved interim de-freezing, and what would be the effect of the statutory stay pending the proposed appeal.
Analysis: The Court directed that the frozen bank account be de-freezed for the time being, while making it clear that the relief would remain subject to the final outcome of the appeal if filed. The Court further recorded that the statutory stay under the relevant GST appellate provision would continue until the appeal is decided, and that if the appeal is not filed within limitation or the requisite deposit is not made within the stipulated period, the order would cease to operate and the State would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Conclusion: Interim de-freezing was granted, and the statutory stay was directed to continue until disposal of the proposed appeal.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by enabling the petitioner to pursue the GST appellate remedy upon the Tribunal becoming functional, granting interim relief against bank-account freeze, and preserving the State's recovery rights if the appeal is not pursued in the manner directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory appellate forum is not yet functional, the Court may preserve the right of appeal and grant consequential interim protection, while requiring compliance with the statutory deposit and leaving recovery open if the appeal is not pursued within the prescribed framework.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
