P K Traders And Supplier vs. 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. Recovery of the balance amount and any related steps would be deemed stayed. The Court also directed that the petitioner must 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. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the stipulated time after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also ordered the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if the 20 percent deposit is made.

Facts

P K Traders and Supplier, the petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking 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 availing this remedy and the consequential benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount under Section 112(8) and (9). The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's President entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court due to this procedural impediment.

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 the statutory remedy and the benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which postpones the commencement of the limitation period, supports their claim for equitable relief. The revenue/State implicitly acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the resulting difficulty, as evidenced by their issuance of the removal of difficulties order.