A division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court held that a petitioner cannot be deprived of benefits due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner wanted to deploy Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.G.S.T. Act’) to pursue the statutory remedy of appealing the contested ruling before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the petitioner defeated his statutory remedy under Sub-Sections (8) and (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act because of the non-constitution of Tribunal. The Petitioner was 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.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit since the respondents didn't establish the Tribunal.
It was noted that once the tribunal is constituted and operational, and the President or the State President may take office, the petitioner will need to present or file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, since the order is being passed because the respondent Authorities are not constitutional. To enable the Tribunal to examine the appeal, it would be necessary for the appeal to be submitted in accordance with the statutory procedures as soon as the Tribunal was established.
Decision of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations and directions:
- The Court granted the statutory relief of stay and stated that this relief cannot be open-ended. To balance the equities, the petitioner is required to file an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act when the Tribunal is constituted and operational and its President or State President takes office.
- If the petitioner chooses not to file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal is constituted, the respondent authorities are allowed to proceed with the matter according to the law.
- If the petitioner complies with the order by paying the required 20% of the remaining tax in dispute, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account related to the demand will be released.
Case Title: M/s Cohesive Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15438 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Alok Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Dr. K.N. Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
