Md. Mojahid Ahmad vs. The State Of Bihar

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 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute, 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. However, the Court also held that this stay could not be open-ended. To balance equities, 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 in accordance with law. The Court also directed that if the conditions were complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account would be released.

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 (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the Tribunal was not 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 under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court due to this procedural deadlock.

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? The petitioner argued that they should not be penalized for a procedural lapse on the part of the respondents and should be granted the benefit of stay upon depositing the stipulated amount. The revenue did not record any specific argument against this point, but the court's decision implies a need to balance equities. 2. Whether the stay on recovery should be open-ended, or if there should be a condition for filing the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted? The petitioner sought to avail the stay, implying a desire for a prolonged period of relief. The revenue's stance on this was not explicitly recorded. The court considered the need for a balanced approach, acknowledging the respondents' role in the delay.