M/S Anand Stores 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 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. 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, observing statutory requirements. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within a 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. The ratio is that a litigant should not suffer due to administrative delays in establishing statutory forums, and interim relief should be granted to preserve rights, with a clear path for the eventual adjudication of the dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anand Stores, 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 was not 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 State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification (S. O. 399 dated 11.12.2019) under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stipulating that the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal 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 respondents? The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of a statutory remedy due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal, and therefore, should be granted the benefit of stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party should not suffer due to the inaction of the authorities. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against this contention, but their actions (issuing the notification) implicitly acknowledged the issue. 2. What is the appropriate course of action to balance equities and ensure the petitioner can eventually avail their appellate remedy once the Tribunal is constituted? The Court had to determine a mechanism to allow the petitioner to secure a stay on recovery while also ensuring that the appeal process is eventually followed once the Tribunal becomes functional.