Scintillation Trucking INDIA Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Scintillation Trucking India Limited, 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 obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order 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 constitution and the entry of office by its President. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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 reasoned that the petitioner's right to appeal and seek a stay is a statutory right, and their inability to exercise it should not be a cause for prejudice. 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 under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act), the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard will be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this relief cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to 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 in accordance with law. The Court noted that similar relief was granted in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(8) and (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 a specified percentage of the disputed tax, notwithstanding the non-functional status of the Tribunal? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery, as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. They contended that their inability to exercise this right is solely due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal, and therefore, they should not be prejudiced. They relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the administrative inaction of the authorities. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the removal of difficulties, which stipulated that the limitation period for appeals would commence after the Tribunal's constitution. They did not appear to contest the petitioner's right to seek relief in the present writ petition.