2023 (12) TMI 1400 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order - non-constitution of the Tribunal - 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. Petition disposed off.

2023 (3) TMI 1390 - HC

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-constitution?
What conditions must the petitioner fulfill to avail the statutory relief of stay under the B.G.S.T. Act?

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.

← Previous Next →