Trigger Apparels Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

Trigger Apparels Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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. The petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, which prevented them from obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as per Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. The 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 limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution and the President's assumption of office.

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 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 Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act), the petitioner shall be extended the statutory benefit of stay. Recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard will be deemed stayed. The Court reasoned that this relief is being granted due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal, and similar relief has been granted in other cases. However, the Court also held that this 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 an appeal within the period specified after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court expressly left undecided any issues related to the merits of the petitioner's appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can 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 Appellate Tribunal by the respondents? (Question of law) 2. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act should commence from the date of the impugned order or from the date of constitution of the Tribunal and assumption of office by its President, considering the notification issued by the State authorities? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, and their inability to avail this remedy is solely due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They also contended that the notification issued by the State authorities correctly addresses the issue of limitation. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party should not be prejudiced by the inaction of the authorities. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the removal of difficulties, including the commencement of the limitation period for appeals.