Petitioner Cannot Be Deprived Of The Benefit, Due To Non- Constitution Of The Appellate Tribunal By The Respondents Themselves: Patna High Court
Case: Cohesive Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd vs The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Ors
Coram: Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15438 of 2023
Court Observation: “(i) 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 recovery of the balance amount and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed. It is not in dispute that similar relief has been granted by this Court in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others in C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022.”
(ii) 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 the 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. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.
Previous Posts
Seniority Among RIMS Employees To Be Based On Order Of Merit In Selection: Jharkhand High Court
