1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in the judgment are:

• Whether the petitioner can be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act).
• What are the implications for the petitioner's right to appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act in light of the Tribunal's non-constitutionRs.
• What conditions must the petitioner fulfill to avail the statutory relief of stay under the B.G.S.T. ActRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Stay on Recovery of Disputed Tax Due to Non-Constitution of Tribunal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, focusing on Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The relief was sought due to the Tribunal's non-constitution, which has been acknowledged by the State authorities.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the petitioner's inability to appeal due to the Tribunal's non-constitution and highlighted the State's acknowledgment of this issue through a notification. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of statutory benefits due to this administrative delay.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The State's notification dated 11.12.2019, which postponed the limitation period for appeals until the Tribunal's President assumes office, was pivotal in the court's decision.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the law by ensuring the petitioner could avail the stay of recovery by depositing 20% of the disputed tax, as per Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the petitioner's right to statutory relief against the respondent's administrative constraints, ensuring fairness by requiring the petitioner to file an appeal once the Tribunal is constituted.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, contingent upon the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount.

Issue 2: Implications for Right to Appeal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act outlines the procedure for appeals to the Tribunal. The court referenced similar relief granted in previous cases, such as SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the petitioner's right to appeal should be preserved, despite the Tribunal's non-constitution, by allowing the appeal to be filed once the Tribunal becomes operational.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The notification postponing the appeal period until the Tribunal's operationalization was crucial evidence supporting the court's decision.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court ensured that the petitioner's right to appeal remains intact and enforceable upon the Tribunal's constitution.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the need for administrative efficiency with the petitioner's right to legal recourse, ensuring that the appeal process would commence once feasible.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted, maintaining the statutory framework's integrity.

Issue 3: Conditions for Availing Statutory Relief of Stay

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The statutory requirement under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act mandates a deposit of 20% of the disputed tax amount to avail a stay on recovery.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the petitioner should comply with the statutory deposit requirement to balance equities and ensure fairness in the interim relief granted.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court's decision was supported by the statutory framework and the precedent set in similar cases.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the law by stipulating the deposit condition for the stay, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court addressed potential concerns about open-ended relief by requiring the petitioner to proceed with the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed tax to avail the stay, with the expectation of filing an appeal upon the Tribunal's constitution.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rights should not be hindered by administrative delays and that equitable relief should be provided to maintain fairness.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the petitioner is entitled to a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, contingent upon a 20% deposit, and must file an appeal once the Tribunal is operational.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act) despite the non-constitution of the TribunalRs.
• Whether the petitioner can be granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act in the absence of the TribunalRs.
• What are the implications of the non-constitution of the Tribunal on the petitioner's right to appeal and seek a stayRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Statutory Remedy of Appeal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The B.G.S.T. Act provides the statutory framework for appeals under Section 112. However, the Tribunal's non-constitution has impeded the petitioner's ability to appeal.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the petitioner's right to appeal under Section 112, which is currently obstructed due to the Tribunal's non-constitution.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The state authorities acknowledged the Tribunal's non-constitution and issued a notification to address the limitation period for appeals.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the B.G.S.T. Act, emphasizing the petitioner's right to appeal, which cannot be nullified by the Tribunal's non-existence.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court noted the state's notification as an acknowledgment of the issue and a temporary solution to the limitation period problem.
• Conclusions: The petitioner retains the right to appeal once the Tribunal is constituted, and the limitation period will commence from the date the Tribunal becomes functional.

Issue 2: Grant of Stay on Recovery of Disputed Tax

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act allows for a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount upon depositing a specified percentage of the tax.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the petitioner should not be deprived of the stay benefit due to the Tribunal's non-constitution, provided the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court referenced a similar case where relief was granted under comparable circumstances.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the statutory provisions to grant a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount, contingent upon the deposit of 20% of the disputed amount.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the equities by ensuring the petitioner fulfills the statutory deposit requirement while awaiting the Tribunal's constitution.
• Conclusions: The petitioner is granted a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, subject to the deposit of 20% of the amount, until the Tribunal is constituted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves."
• Core Principles Established: The court established that statutory rights and remedies cannot be negated due to administrative delays, such as the non-constitution of a Tribunal.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue:
  
  • The petitioner retains the right to appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, with the limitation period commencing upon the Tribunal's constitution.
  • The petitioner is entitled to a stay on the recovery of the disputed tax amount, subject to depositing 20% of the amount, until the Tribunal is constituted.
  • If the petitioner does not file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the state authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
  
  

The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition with specific directions and observations, ensuring the petitioner's rights are preserved while balancing the interests of the state authorities.

Issues: (i) Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF; (ii) whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta; (iii) whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition; (iv) whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers on a daughter, in the same manner as a son, the right to become a coparcener and consequently a Karta of a Mitakshara HUF.

Analysis: The amended provision expressly states that the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in her own right in the same manner as a son and enjoys the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property. The judgment held that the statute is clear and unambiguous, and its object is to remove gender discrimination and confer equal status on daughters. Once a daughter acquires coparcenary status, the right to manage the joint family property follows as an incident of that status. The limiting notion that Karta must necessarily be the senior-most male was held to be inconsistent with the amended statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The daughter, if otherwise the senior-most coparcener, can be Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether marriage, non-participation in family affairs, or absence of male spiritual functions disqualify a female coparcener from being Karta.

Analysis: The Court held that the amended law does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters, and marriage does not sever coparcenary rights. Non-participation in management does not destroy the legal entitlement to be Karta, because actual management and legal status are distinct. The argument founded on supposed religious or spiritual functions was rejected for Mitakshara coparcenary, as such considerations do not create a statutory disqualification once the daughter has coparcenary rights. Societal hesitation was held incapable of overriding express legislative equality.

Conclusion: These factors do not disqualify a daughter from being Karta. The conclusion was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the HUF and coparcenary subsisted on the facts, having regard to the family settlement, mutation entries, and alleged prior partition.

Analysis: The Court found from the mutation records, the family settlement of 1999, and the evidence of the parties that the family had already undergone severance of status and division of shares, though not by metes and bounds. The property continued to be shown in revenue and income-tax records as HUF property only for administrative purposes, but the underlying status had become that of divided ownership among the branches. The Court further held that the Income-tax Act fiction under Section 171 does not prevent recognition of a partition in Hindu law where severance of status has already taken place.

Conclusion: The HUF had ceased as a living coparcenary in the Hindu law sense, though the property could still be described in records for limited purposes. This issue was decided in favour of the respondent to the extent that the prior partition and continued recordal did not defeat her claim.

Issue (iv): Whether the suit was maintainable and properly valued for court-fee purposes.

Analysis: The suit for declaration was held maintainable without a consequential prayer for possession because the parties were treated as being in constructive joint possession. On valuation, the Court accepted the jurisdictional valuation but held that ad valorem court-fee was payable on that value under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the fixed fee earlier paid was deficient.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable, but deficient court-fee had to be made good. This issue was partly against the respondent on court-fee and otherwise in favour of the respondent on maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the respondent's entitlement to represent the family before the competent authority was affirmed, and the declaration of her status as Karta was upheld, with directions regarding payment of deficient court-fee.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter of a coparcener acquires coparcenary status by birth in the same manner as a son, and the right to manage the coparcenary property as Karta is an incident of that status unless lawfully displaced.

Outcome: Notice was directed to be issued to the standing/nominated counsel for the State, rejoinder and service steps were permitted within specified timelines, interim directions were issued regarding enforcement of the impugned judgment in the event of non-deposit, and the matter was directed to be listed again in February 2024.

Issues: Whether the interim order dated 16 October 2023 deserved to be made absolute.

Analysis: The appellant had not been arrested even during the course of investigation. In the facts and circumstances placed before the Court, the interim protection already operating was found fit to be continued on the same terms and conditions.

Conclusion: The interim order dated 16 October 2023 was made absolute, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore deposited under protest could be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal under the GST law. (ii) Whether the alleged blocking of input tax credit had ceased by operation of law.

Issue (i): Whether the amount of Rs. 1 crore deposited under protest could be treated as compliance with the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal under the GST law.

Analysis: The deposit was made under protest before any demand had been raised. Such deposit was not made in pursuance of an adjudicated liability, and the subsequent demand could not alter the character of the earlier payment. The Court followed the principle that a voluntary deposit made under protest is not to be excluded while examining compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition for maintaining an appeal. A technical insistence on a fresh deposit would frustrate the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The Rs. 1 crore deposit was rightly directed to be treated as the pre-deposit required for the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged blocking of input tax credit had ceased by operation of law.

Analysis: The respondents stated that they had not blocked the input tax credit. In any event, the alleged blocking had been in existence beyond the statutory period, and the attachment could not continue indefinitely. On the expiry of the statutory period, the restraint ceased to operate by force of law.

Conclusion: The alleged blocking of input tax credit stood defreezed by operation of law.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of by granting the assessee relief on both substantive issues and by directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary payment made under protest, when no demand had yet been raised, can be counted towards the mandatory pre-deposit for an appeal, and a statutory restraint on input tax credit cannot continue beyond the period permitted by law.

Issues: Whether further attribution of business profits to the alleged permanent establishment in India was warranted where the Indian subsidiary had already been remunerated on an arm's length basis.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India through its subsidiary, but also found that the subsidiary had already been compensated at arm's length. On that basis, it held that once the commission and remuneration paid to the Indian entity were adjusted against the profits attributed to the permanent establishment, no taxable income remained and no further attribution was justified. The High Court found no reason to interfere with that finding and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: Further profit attribution was not warranted, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive issue.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed because the Tribunal's view on arm's length remuneration and consequent absence of further taxable attribution was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Indian entity through which a permanent establishment is alleged to exist has already been remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profits is warranted if the adjusted computation leaves no taxable income in the hands of the permanent establishment.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment addresses the following core legal questions:

• Whether the prerequisites of Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 are satisfied in the show cause notice and orders passed by the revenue authorities.
• Whether the denial of the right to a second appeal due to the non-constitution of the appellate tribunal under Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 is justified.
• What is the appropriate percentage of pre-deposit required for interim relief in the absence of a functional appellate tribunalRs.
• How should the court balance the interests of the revenue and the rights of the assessee in granting interim ordersRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Prerequisites of Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 prescribes conditions for issuing show cause notices and orders by revenue authorities.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner argued that the conditions under Section 74 were not met, but the court did not provide a detailed analysis on this point, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of appeal rights.
• Key evidence and findings: The court did not delve into the specifics of the evidence regarding Section 74 compliance.
• Application of law to facts: The court acknowledged the petitioner's contention but did not make a conclusive finding on this issue.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court noted the petitioner's argument but did not address it substantively in the interim order.
• Conclusions: The issue remains unresolved pending further proceedings.

Issue 2: Denial of Right to Second Appeal

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 112 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 provides for a second appeal to an appellate tribunal, which has not been constituted.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that executive inertia should not deny statutory rights, citing Supreme Court precedents on avoiding impossibility due to state inaction.
• Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the absence of the appellate tribunal and the resulting denial of the petitioner's appeal rights.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of fairness and non-discrimination, asserting the petitioner's right to appeal should not be hindered by the government's failure to establish the tribunal.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court sided with the petitioner, finding the state's inaction unjustifiable.
• Conclusions: The court recognized the petitioner's right to appeal and granted interim relief pending tribunal constitution.

Issue 3: Appropriate Percentage of Pre-Deposit

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 107 and 112 of the GST Acts outline pre-deposit requirements for appeals.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examined inconsistent interim orders regarding pre-deposit percentages, emphasizing the need for uniformity and fairness.
• Key evidence and findings: The court reviewed past orders requiring 30% or 50% pre-deposits and noted the inconsistency with statutory requirements.
• Application of law to facts: The court decided on a 20% pre-deposit, aligning with statutory provisions and ensuring equitable treatment.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court balanced revenue interests with assessees' rights, opting for a consistent approach.
• Conclusions: The court directed a 20% pre-deposit, maintaining consistency with statutory guidelines and prior judgments.

Issue 4: Balancing Revenue Interests and Assessee Rights

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referenced Supreme Court judgments on equitable interim relief and consistency in judicial decisions.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized the need for similar treatment in similar cases to avoid discrimination and uphold Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the inconsistency in previous interim orders and the need for a standardized approach.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of fairness, opting for a 20% pre-deposit to balance interests.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the state's and assessees' positions, favoring a balanced interim relief approach.
• Conclusions: The court established a precedent for consistent interim orders, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The executive inertia cannot become the cause of denial of a statutory right."
• Core principles established: The court underscored the need for consistency in interim orders, fairness in appeal rights, and non-discrimination in judicial treatment.
• Final determinations on each issue: The court directed a 20% pre-deposit for interim relief, pending the constitution of the appellate tribunal, and stayed recovery proceedings for the balance amount.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petition was dismissed following the judgment relied upon by the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the accused retracted the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act through Ext. D1; (ii) Whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon; (iii) Whether any admission in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the prosecution case; (iv) Whether the acquittal required interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the accused retracted the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act through Ext. D1.

Analysis: Ext. D1 was produced from official custody pursuant to summons, but its contents were not proved through any witness. Mere marking of a document does not establish its contents, and the requirements for dispensing with formal proof under section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not shown to have been satisfied. Since the retraction itself was not proved in evidence, the document could not be treated as a proved retraction.

Conclusion: The accused did not succeed in proving a valid retraction through Ext. D1.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon.

Analysis: A statement under section 108 is admissible only if it is voluntary and trustworthy. The surrounding circumstances, the form and content of the statements, and the inconsistencies noticed in the prosecution evidence created doubt about voluntariness and reliability. In the absence of independent corroboration and in view of the suspicious features in the statements, the burden of proving voluntariness was not discharged to the required standard.

Conclusion: The statements under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon as voluntary and trustworthy evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether any admission in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the prosecution case.

Analysis: The statement under section 313 did not contain any clear admission of the offence. Even assuming some admission, such a statement is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself fill gaps in the prosecution case. It can only be used to corroborate otherwise proved prosecution evidence.

Conclusion: No conviction could be founded on the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (iv): Whether the acquittal required interference in appeal.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or impossible. The prosecution evidence contained material contradictions regarding the place of interception and the manner of seizure, while the best available evidence was not produced. The declaration form and the other surrounding circumstances also supported the trial court's view, and the record did not justify reversal of the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish a reliable and voluntary confession or any substantive basis to upset the acquittal, and the appellate court declined to disturb the trial court's finding.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession under section 108 of the Customs Act can be acted upon only if its voluntariness and truth are established by reliable evidence, and an acquittal cannot be reversed unless the trial court's view is perverse.

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeals before the High Court were maintainable when the Tribunal's order involved, in substance, determination of the value of goods for purposes of assessment, and consequently attracted the appellate route to the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 excludes High Court appellate jurisdiction where the Tribunal's order relates to questions having a direct bearing on the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment. The impugned Tribunal order proceeded on findings concerning misdeclaration of value, confiscation, denial of drawback, and recovery of drawback, making valuation an integral part of the controversy. On that basis, the matter fell within the class of cases for which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The reference to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 also supported the view that the statutory appellate structure did not permit the High Court to entertain the Revenue's challenge.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable before the High Court and could only be pursued before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's decision directly and proximately turns on the valuation of goods for assessment, the High Court's appellate jurisdiction is barred and the statutory appeal lies to the Supreme Court.