M/S Tanya Construction And Plantation PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, Patna

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tanya Construction and Plantation Pvt. Ltd., 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 for assessment periods 2018-19, 2019-20, and March 2019. The petitioner was unable to file appeals due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The respondent authorities acknowledged this difficulty 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 period of limitation for preferring an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought a stay on the recovery of the balance amount of tax in dispute.

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. The 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 functional, observing statutory requirements. 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. The Court also ordered the release of any attachment on the petitioner's bank account if the 20% deposit is made. The ratio is that statutory benefits should not be denied due to administrative inaction, and a conditional stay can be granted pending the constitution of appellate authorities.

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, notwithstanding the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, upon depositing a specified portion of the disputed tax amount? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay of recovery due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They relied on the notification issued by the State authorities which acknowledged the issue of non-constitution and its impact on limitation periods. Respondent's Contention: The respondent authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification providing a mechanism for dealing with the delay in filing appeals. They did not dispute the petitioner's inability to file appeals. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the respondents against the petitioner's prayer for stay upon deposit.