M/S. Maa Durga Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, subject to the deposit of 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not be prejudiced by the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps were deemed stayed. The Court also stipulated that this stay cannot be open-ended. The petitioner is 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 upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed. Furthermore, upon compliance with the deposit, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account shall be released. The ratio is that statutory remedies should not be rendered nugatory due to administrative delays in constituting statutory bodies, and interim relief can be granted with conditions to balance equities.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Maa Durga Enterprises, 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 Act (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 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 Tribunal's President or State President entered office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, considering the respondents' role in this delay? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this benefit due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party should not suffer due to the inaction of the authorities and cited a similar relief granted in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against this point, but their actions and the notification acknowledged the situation. 2. What is the appropriate course of action to balance the equities and ensure the petitioner can eventually avail their statutory remedy once the Tribunal is constituted? The Court had to determine a mechanism to provide interim relief while ensuring the eventual filing of the appeal.