Sabita Singh Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
In Sabita Singh v. Union of India, the Patna High Court addressed a tax recovery dispute under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. The petitioner, Sabita Singh, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), she was unable to file a statutory appeal as permitted under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. Without this tribunal, she could not secure an automatic stay on recovery by paying the required deposit under the Act, leaving her vulnerable to tax recovery actions without recourse to appeal.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s dilemma, the court granted a conditional stay on tax recovery, stipulating that the petitioner must deposit an additional 20% of the disputed tax amount (if not already deposited) to secure a stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court emphasized that taxpayers should not be deprived of their statutory right to appeal due to administrative delays in establishing the tribunal. However, the stay would not be indefinite; once the tribunal is constituted, the petitioner is required to file the appeal formally within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements. Failure to file the appeal upon the tribunal’s establishment would allow tax authorities to proceed with recovery actions.
