Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 586 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of statutory remedy of appeal - non-constitution of the Tribunal (for which petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act) - 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. Reliance placed in the case of ANGEL ENGICON PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX [2023 (3) TMI 879 - PATNA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 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. 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. In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion, that equities are required to be balanced. In the instant case, non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal causing deprivation to the petitioner’s statutory right to appeal under Section 112(8)(9) has to be viewed in the background of the fact that at least the amount, as contemplated under Section 112(8), i.e., 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute is required to be deposited by the petitioner with due diligence, if he is genuinely desirous of availaing the remedy of appeal, which, in the opinion of this Court, would be within four(4) weeks. Application disposed off.
|