Baljeet Chandra vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Baljeet Chandra, proprietor of M/s Atul Enterprises, 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 the appeal and consequently from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount under 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 period of limitation for 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 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 steps taken for it were deemed to be stayed. The Court also directed that 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, within a period to be specified upon its constitution. If the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also ordered the release of any attachment of the petitioner's bank account if the 20 percent deposit was 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, and if so, upon what conditions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should not commence until the Tribunal is functional, as indicated by the respondents' own notification. Revenue/State's contention: 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, which provided that the period of limitation for appeal would start only after the constitution of the Tribunal. They did not contest the petitioner's inability to file an appeal due to this reason.