Gayatri Kumari @ Gyatri Kumari @ Gayatri Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Kumari, 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 her appeal and consequently from availing the benefit of a stay on 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 limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's President entered office. The petitioner sought directions 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 her depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6). 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 directed that the petitioner must file her appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, adhering to statutory requirements. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also ordered the release of any bank account attachment if the compliance order is met. The ratio is that where statutory remedies are rendered unavailable due to administrative inaction, the Court can grant interim relief to balance equities and prevent prejudice to the litigant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax 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 respondents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that she is being deprived of her statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. She 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. She relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to administrative inaction. Revenue's contention: The respondents acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the issuance of the removal of difficulties order. They did not contest the petitioner's right to seek relief in light of this situation. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue beyond acknowledging the factual situation.