9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 122 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition seeking multifarious reliefs - non-constitution of the Tribunal - HELD THAT - Due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act - the petitioner is also prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112. Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves - The statutory relief of stay, on deposit of the statutory amount, however in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent- Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, hindering the petitioner's right to appeal and stay of recovery of tax amount. Details of the Judgment: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, primarily the right to appeal against an order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, the non-constitution of the Tribunal deprived the petitioner of the statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, preventing the petitioner from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the tax amount. The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification to address the issue. The notification stated that the period of limitation for appealing before the Tribunal shall start only after the President or State President of the Tribunal enters office post-constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court, considering the circumstances, disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner the benefit of stay upon depositing a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining tax amount in dispute. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The Court also specified that the relief of stay is not open-ended and the petitioner must file an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner chooses not to file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities are permitted to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law. Additionally, if the order is complied with and the required amount is paid, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account shall be released. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition was disposed of, providing the petitioner with the necessary relief and guidance regarding the appeal process once the Tribunal is established.
|
