Rangesh Kumar Gautam 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 should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. Consequently, the recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in that regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also held that this relief of stay cannot be open-ended. To balance equities, 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 made 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 further. The Court also directed that if the conditions are complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The Court relied on a similar relief granted 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 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 stay of recovery of the balance tax amount, which is contingent upon depositing a specified portion of the disputed tax as per Section 112(8) 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 limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal enters office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, upon depositing 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount? 2. Whether the period of stay granted due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal should be open-ended, or should there be a condition for the petitioner to file the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They argued that the non-constitution of the Tribunal should not prejudice their right to seek a stay of recovery. The petitioner relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to administrative inaction. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent State authorities. However, their acknowledgment of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the issuance of the removal of difficulties notification suggests an understanding of the issue.