Sachin Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, proprietor of M/s Laptop World, 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 an 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, upon depositing the stipulated pre-deposit. The State authorities had 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 President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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 cannot be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also noted that similar relief was granted in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others. However, the Court clarified that this stay cannot be open-ended. The petitioner would be required to present/file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, and the President or State President enters office, observing all statutory requirements. 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 issue of the exact amount of pre-deposit under Section 112(8) was not explicitly decided as the Court directed a 20% deposit of the remaining tax in dispute.

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, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, upon depositing 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of a statutory remedy and the consequential benefit of stay due to the inaction of the respondents in constituting the Tribunal. They contended that the non-constitution of the Tribunal should not prejudice their right to seek a stay upon fulfilling the pre-deposit requirements. They relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to administrative delays. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent State authorities. However, their acknowledgment of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the issuance of the removal of difficulties notification suggests an awareness of the issue.