Sujeet Builders (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. State Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Sujeet Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tribunal was not constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal and consequently 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. The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stipulating that the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court due to this procedural impediment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, provided they deposit 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 should not suffer due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps would be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this relief 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 upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also directed the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if the stipulated deposit is made. The issue of the exact quantum of tax in dispute was not explicitly detailed in the judgment.

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, in light of the respondents' role in this delay? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. They relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the administrative inaction of the authorities. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the situation. They did not explicitly contest the petitioner's right to relief but rather proposed a framework for granting it.