In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court (HC) Bench consisting Acting Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Madhuresh Prasad granted relief to the business tycoon Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
In the absence of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the High Court stayed the recovery of the remaining sum of tax due under the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The petitioner would be required to file the appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (BGST Act), once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may take office, because the order is being passed as a result of the Tribunal’s non-constitution by the respondent-Authorities.
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.,the petitioner, filed the writ petition in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking relief to revoke the recovery notice given on September 7, 2022, the summary of demand issued in form GST APL-04, and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07.
The additional fact in the current instance is that, according to the petitioner, 20% of the balance of the tax in question has already been deposited in these proceedings.
The Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act’s Section 112 permits the petitioner to appeal the contested order before the Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), if so chooses. Nonetheless, the petitioner was denied a statutory remedy under the BGST Act due to the non-constitution of GSTAT.
The BGST Act’s Section 112 permits for the filing of appeals with the appellate tribunal. The section 112(9) states that when the appellant pays the sum as specified in sub-section(8), the recovery actions for the remaining amount are deemed to be stayed until the appeal is resolved.
In this regard, the petitioner is also precluded from benefiting from the stay of collection of the remaining tax amount in accordance with Sections 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act following the deposit of the funds as intended by Subsection(8) of Section 112.
The bench decided that “subject to verification of the fact of deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, or deposit of the same, 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, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to the non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves.”
Furthermore, it was instructed to the respondent authorities that they may pursue the matter in accordance with the law if the petitioner fails to request the benefit under section 112 of the BGST Act before the tribunal within the time frame stipulated upon the formation of the tribunal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
