Case Law Details
Manokamna proprietor Seema Jaiswal Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Introduction: In a recent verdict, the Patna High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/s Manokamna, challenging the GST demand without the option of appeal due to the non-existence of the GST Tribunal in Bihar. The court’s refusal to grant a stay hinged on the interpretation of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, contended that the absence of a constituted GST Tribunal in Bihar deprived them of availing the remedy under Section 112 for appeals. The crux of the matter lies in challenging the vires of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, which mandates depositing a sum for maintaining an appeal. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, adhering to Section 112.
Conclusion: The Patna High Court, while refusing interim relief, emphasized that staying the impugned order might essentially halt the effects of Section 16(4) of the GST Act. The court drew parallels with a previous Division Bench decision, suggesting that the petitioner’s account could be de-attached upon depositing the entire determined liability. This judgment carries implications for cases challenging the vires of statutory provisions, reinforcing the stance against staying legislative effects during legal scrutiny.
The Patna High Court, while considering a writ petition seeking to grant stay for the GST demand since the statutory remedy through appeal cannot be invoked due to the non-constitution of GST Tribunal, has refused to grant stay holding that the same would amount to staying the effect of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
