Case Reference
M/s Sant Motocorp v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
WPT No. 80 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 09.05.2024
Section Involved: Section 107 and Section 112(9), CGST Act, 2017
Category: Appeal – Statutory Stay in absence of Appellate Tribunal
Facts of the case (Paras 2–5)
The petitioner, M/s Sant Motocorp, challenged the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Chhattisgarh under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Earlier, the State Tax Officer had issued a demand order on 24.02.2023 imposing tax, interest, and penalty for the assessment period 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017. The appeal before the first appellate authority was dismissed.
Since the second appeal under Section 112 lies before the GST Appellate Tribunal, and though the Tribunal had been notified in Chhattisgarh, no President or Members had been appointed, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief.
Questions before the Court (Paras 5–7)
-
Whether the petitioner could be granted relief when the statutory Tribunal under Section 109 had not yet been constituted?
-
Whether the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) could be availed despite the Tribunal’s non-functioning?
Observations of the Court (Paras 7–10)
The Court noted similar rulings from:
-
Patna High Court in M/s Cohesive Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CBIC (CWJC 15438/2023), which held that statutory stay cannot be denied due to the State’s failure to constitute the Tribunal, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax beyond Section 107(6) pre-deposit.
-
Bombay High Court in Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (WP 10883/2019), which adopted the same reasoning.
The State Government’s notification dated 05.12.2019 extending limitation until the President of the Tribunal assumes office was also taken note of.
Judgment (Paras 9–11)
-
The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner must file the statutory appeal before the Tribunal as soon as the President/State President enters office.
-
The statutory stay under Section 112(9) will remain operative until the appeal is decided on merits.
-
If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation once the Tribunal becomes functional, the State may proceed with recovery.
-
The petitioner was granted 30 days to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit amount; otherwise, no protection under this order would be available.
Case laws referred (with verdicts)
| Case | Court | Citation/No. | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s Cohesive Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. CBIC | Patna HC | CWJC No. 15438/2023 | Statutory stay under Section 112(9) must be granted despite Tribunal not functioning, subject to deposit of 20% of balance disputed tax. |
| SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar | Patna HC | CWJC No. 15465/2022 | Similar relief granted; recovery stayed due to Tribunal non-constitution. |
| Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | Bombay HC | WP No. 10883/2019 | Taxpayer cannot be deprived of appellate remedy due to delay in Tribunal’s constitution; stay protection must be extended. |
Between fine lines
For businesses, this judgment confirms that taxpayers cannot be penalized for the Government’s delay in constituting the GST Appellate Tribunal. Statutory stay protections under Section 112(9) remain available provided the required pre-deposit is made. However, assessees must be vigilant to file appeals promptly once the Tribunal becomes functional, else recovery will resume.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
