Md. Mojahid Ahmad vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 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 Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 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 would be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this relief of stay 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 after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also directed that if the conditions are complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The Court relied on a previous decision in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Mojahid Ahmad, 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 Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, the Tribunal had not been 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 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 period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office.

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, by depositing 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They argued that they should not be penalized for a situation beyond their control and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirement. Revenue's Argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the difficulties arising from it. Their stance, as reflected in the court's order, was to facilitate a resolution that balances the petitioner's rights with the statutory framework, acknowledging the delay caused by the non-constitution of the Tribunal.