9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 952 - HC - GSTSeeking multifarious reliefs - Seeking to avail statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal - prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax - HELD THAT - The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office. 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 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 this case are the non-constitution of the Tribunal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act), deprivation of statutory remedy of appeal, benefit of stay of recovery of tax amount, acknowledgment of non-constitution of the Tribunal by the State authorities, and the relief granted by the Court in similar cases. Non-constitution of Tribunal and Deprivation of Statutory Remedy: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily desiring to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. However, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner was deprived of the statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The respondent State authorities acknowledged this fact and issued a notification for removal of difficulties, stating that the period of limitation for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal shall start only after the Tribunal is constituted. Grant of Relief by the Court: The Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting certain reliefs to the petitioner. Firstly, subject to the deposit of a specified sum, the petitioner was extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. Additionally, the Court stated that the relief of stay, upon deposit of the statutory amount, cannot be open-ended and directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. Further Directions and Compliance: The Court further directed that if the petitioner complies with the order and pays the required amount, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The petitioner's counsel raised a concern regarding the deduction of more than 20% of the tax amount from the petitioner's account, to which the Court clarified that if such deduction is made, there would be no need for the petitioner to pay an additional 20%. Conclusion: With the above observations, directions, and liberty granted, the writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal by filing before the Tribunal once it is constituted. Failure to do so would give the respondent authorities the liberty to proceed further in accordance with the law.
|
