P K Traders And Supplier vs. The 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 cannot 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 towards it would be deemed stayed. The Court also stipulated that this stay would not 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 upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed. The Court also directed the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if the 20 percent deposit is made. The issue of the exact quantum of tax in dispute was not elaborated upon, but the condition for stay was based on the 'remaining amount of tax in dispute'.

Facts

The petitioner, P K Traders and Supplier, 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 an 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 Tribunal's President entered office.

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 respondents are responsible for this delay? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. They relied on the principle that a party should not suffer due to the administrative inaction of the authorities. The petitioner also referred to a similar relief granted by the High Court in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or State authorities regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the stay. However, they acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification to address the situation.