Puja Kumari, A Proprietary Concern vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Puja Kumari, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act) before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal and availing the benefit of stay of 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 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 filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office.

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 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6). 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 that regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also clarified that this relief of stay 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 functional. If the petitioner fails to file the 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 relied on a previous decision in 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 of recovery of the balance amount of tax under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequent benefit of stay due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They argued that they should not suffer due to the inaction of the authorities. - Revenue/State's argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the issue of limitation, indicating their awareness of the procedural difficulty. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's entitlement to stay but rather acknowledged the situation.