Manoj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, 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 the appeal and consequently from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount as per 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 (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 appeal would commence after the Tribunal's constitution. The petitioner claimed to have already paid the additional 20% of the disputed tax.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 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 a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner shall be extended the benefit of stay. Recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard were deemed to be 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 made 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 in accordance with law. The Court also ordered the release of any attachment of the petitioner's bank account if the 20% of the remaining tax is paid. The ratio is that statutory remedies cannot be rendered nugatory due to administrative inaction, and courts can grant interim relief to preserve the efficacy of such remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay of recovery under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of recovery of the balance tax amount upon depositing 20% of the remaining disputed tax, in addition to the amount already deposited at the first appellate stage, given the non-constitution of the Tribunal? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of the statutory remedy of stay of recovery, which is contingent upon the constitution of the Tribunal, a responsibility of the respondents. They contended that they have fulfilled the conditions for stay, including the deposit of the additional 20% of the disputed tax. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent State authorities regarding the petitioner's contentions. However, their issuance of the notification under Section 172 acknowledges the situation arising from the non-constitution of the Tribunal.