Rangesh Kumar Gautam vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot 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 Tribunal by the respondents. The Court directed that subject to the deposit of 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute (in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6)), the petitioner shall be extended the statutory benefit of stay. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps will be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this relief cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to present/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 an appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. If the order is complied with and the 20 percent deposit is made, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The Court relied on a previous order in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Facts

The petitioner, Rangesh Kumar Gautam, proprietor of OM Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court 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 petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. This prevented the petitioner from availing the benefit of a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount, which is contingent upon depositing a certain percentage of the disputed tax as per Section 112(8) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The 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 limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's President enters office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be denied 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 are being deprived of their statutory remedy and the benefit of stay due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that they should not suffer due to the respondents' inaction and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The Court had to decide if the petitioner could be extended the benefit of stay despite the Tribunal not being functional, and if so, under what conditions. The issue also involved the interpretation of the notification issued by the State for removal of difficulties.