M/S Pooja Traders (A Sole Proprietorship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) 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 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 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 specified period 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

The petitioner, M/s Pooja Traders, 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 availing the benefit of a stay on recovery of the balance tax amount as provided under Section 112(8) and (9). 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 period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution and the President entering 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, by depositing 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this statutory benefit due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the notification issued under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which postpones the limitation period, highlights the respondents' acknowledgment of the issue. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in *SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others*. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for a stay, but their actions and the notification indicated an attempt to manage the situation arising from the Tribunal's non-constitution.