Shipra Agrotech Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Shipra Agrotech Private Limited, 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 (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal and consequently from obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as per Sections 112(8) and 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. 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 appeals would commence after the Tribunal's President entered office.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) 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 Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act. 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 related steps would be deemed stayed. The Court also stipulated that this relief could not 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 an 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 20 percent deposit is made.

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 delay is attributable to the respondent authorities? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this statutory benefit due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the notification issued under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which postpones the commencement of the limitation period, implicitly acknowledges this situation. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others. The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal.