M/S Surbhi Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
CWJC/1153/2024HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01000591202422 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

M/s Surbhi Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. The petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, which also prevented them from obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the Act. The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification (Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019) under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The Court directed that subject to the deposit of 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute (in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act), the petitioner shall be extended the benefit of stay, and recovery of the balance amount shall be deemed stayed. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not suffer due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. Regarding the duration of the stay, the Court held that it cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the period specified after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also directed the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax is paid. The issue of the exact period for filing the appeal after Tribunal constitution was left to be specified upon its constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents? The petitioner argued that they are being prevented from availing their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not be penalized for this delay and should be granted the stay on recovery upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. The revenue/State did not record any specific arguments against this point in the judgment, but their actions and the notification acknowledged the situation. 2. Whether the stay on recovery should be open-ended, or if there should be a condition for filing the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted? The petitioner sought the stay to enable them to file their appeal. The Court considered the need to balance equities and ensure that the stay is not indefinite, while also acknowledging the petitioner's right to appeal.

Sections Cited

Section 112, Section 172, Section 107, Section 109

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1153 of 2024 ====================================================== M/s Surbhi Enterprises A proprietorship firm having its place of business at Station Road, Fatwah, Patna, Bihar - 803201 through its proprietor namely Rajesh Kumar, male aged about 45 years, Son of Shiv Nath Sah resident of Station Road, Fatuha, Fatwah, Patna, Bihar - 803201, District Patna - 803201. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, government of India at New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna East Division, Patna. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna City East Circle, Patna City. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Anshman Singh, Senior SC, CGST & CX For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 22-01-2024

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs.

2.

The petitioner essentially is desirous of availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "B.G.S.T. Act").

2/4

3.

However, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the 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.

4.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner is also prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112. 5. 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.

6.

This Court is, therefore, inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition in the following terms:- (i) Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in 3/4 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 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 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. (iii) In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act before the Tribunal within the period which may be specified upon constitution of the Tribunal, the respondent- Authorities 4/4 would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. (iv) If the above order is complied with and a sum equivalent to 20 per cent of the remaining amount of the tax in dispute is paid then, if there is any attachment of the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to the demand, the same shall be released.

7.

With the above liberty, observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sudha/aditya (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Rajiv Roy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.01.2024. Transmission Date

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.