Maruti Store vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Maruti Store, sought 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 non-constitution of the Tribunal prevented the petitioner from filing the appeal and availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount, as contemplated under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The respondent State authorities acknowledged this situation and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution and the President's assumption of office. The petitioner's tax period in dispute is February 2020 to March 2020.

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) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court reasoned that the petitioner cannot be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken towards it would be deemed stayed. The Court also directed that the petitioner must present their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and becomes 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. Furthermore, if the conditions are complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account 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.

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, and if so, upon what conditions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not suffer due to this administrative inaction and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements stipulated in Section 112(8) of the B.G.S.T. Act. Respondent's contention: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the removal of difficulties, indicating that the limitation period would commence post-constitution. No specific argument was recorded against the petitioner's claim for stay, other than acknowledging the factual situation.