M/S New Prakash Drugs vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s New Prakash Drugs, sought to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from availing their statutory remedy. This also prevented the petitioner from obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount, as contemplated under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, upon depositing the required pre-deposit. 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 limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution and the President's assumption of office.
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 tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107. The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not 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 in this regard were deemed to be stayed. However, the Court also opined that this stay cannot be open-ended. To balance equities, the petitioner would be required to file their appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period specified after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also directed that if the 20 percent deposit is made, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The Court noted that similar relief was granted in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.
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, given that the respondents are responsible for its constitution? 2. Whether the benefit of stay should be open-ended, or if there should be a time limit for filing the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Appellate Tribunal. They argued that they should not be penalized for a deficiency on the part of the State authorities. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondent State authorities. However, their acknowledgment of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the issuance of the removal of difficulties order under Section 172 suggests an awareness of the issue and an attempt to address it through administrative measures.
Sections Cited
Section 112, Section 107, Section 172
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 10-09-2024 The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs.
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").
However, due to non-constitution of the 2/4 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.
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.
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 dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section 3/4 (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 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 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 4/4 is any attachment of the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to the demand, the same shall be released. (v) Whatever has been deposited, would be given account in determining the 20 per cent directed to be paid herein.
With the above liberty, observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
aditya/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.09.2024. 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.