M/S Meraki Interactive vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should 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 a sum equal to 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 cannot be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken towards it would be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this stay 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 specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also directed the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if the 20 percent deposit is made.

Facts

M/s Meraki Interactive, a partnership 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 per Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's 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? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this benefit due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the notification issued under Section 172 was a recognition of this difficulty. The revenue/state acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the existence of the notification. The Court had to decide if the petitioner could avail the stay benefit by depositing a portion of the disputed tax, as provided for in Section 112(8) and (9).