Sanjay Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, 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 Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal and consequently 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 a notification 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. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court due to this procedural impediment.

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 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 towards it were deemed stayed. The Court also held that this stay could not be open-ended. To balance equities, 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 after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with 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 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? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this statutory remedy due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. The respondents did not record any specific argument against this point, but their actions and the notification indicated an acknowledgment of the situation. 2. What is the appropriate course of action to balance equities and ensure the petitioner can eventually avail their appellate remedy once the Tribunal is constituted? The petitioner sought directions for the stay of recovery. The respondents' stance was implied through the notification issued under Section 172.