Rccpl Private LTD. vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, RCCPL Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act) before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal and consequently from availing the benefit of 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 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 President of the Tribunal entered office.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The Court directed that 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 petitioner shall be extended the benefit of stay, and recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in that regard shall be deemed to be stayed. The Court also held that this relief of stay cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to present their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional. If the petitioner fails to file an 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 the release of any attachment of the petitioner's bank account if the order is complied with and the 20 percent of the remaining tax is paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondent authorities? (Question of law) 2. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act should commence only after the constitution of the Tribunal and the President entering office, as indicated by the State's notification? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are being prevented from availing their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not be prejudiced by this administrative inaction. Revenue/State's Arguments: 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 to address the situation, indicating that the limitation period would commence after the Tribunal's constitution.