M/S Billion Polycraft PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, subject to the deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken for it were deemed stayed. However, the Court also held that this stay could not be open-ended. The petitioner was directed to file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also directed that if the conditions were complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand would be released.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Billion Polycraft Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition 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. However, the petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. This prevented the petitioner from obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount, as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, upon depositing the stipulated amounts. The respondent State authorities had 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 constitution of the Tribunal and the President entering office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, and if so, what conditions should be imposed for such stay? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Appellate Tribunal. They argued that they should not suffer due to the administrative inaction of the authorities. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the issue of limitation. While not explicitly arguing against the stay, their actions and the notification indicated a reliance on the statutory framework which was currently non-functional for appeals.