Puja Kumari, A Proprietary Concern vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Puja Kumari, sought a statutory 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 availing the benefit of a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the Act. The State authorities acknowledged this issue and issued an 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 appeals would commence only after the constitution of the Tribunal and the entry of the President into office. The petitioner approached the High Court for relief.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The Court directed that subject to the petitioner depositing 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount (in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6)), the recovery of the balance amount would be stayed. This relief is granted to balance equities, acknowledging that the delay is attributable to the respondents. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner must file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, within a period to be specified upon its constitution. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within that period, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed as per law. The Court relied on a previous order in 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 of recovery of balance tax under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal? The petitioner argued that they are being prevented from availing their statutory remedy and the consequent benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the period of limitation for appeal should not run against them in these circumstances. The revenue/State acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and relied on their own notification (Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019) issued under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which stipulated that the limitation period would commence after the Tribunal's constitution.