M/S Bhusari Indane Gramin Vitarak vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhusari Indane Gramin Vitarak, 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 Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, the Tribunal was not constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal and consequently 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 under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered 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, if not already deposited. The Court reasoned that the petitioner cannot 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 would be deemed stayed. However, the Court also held that this relief 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 upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also directed that if 20% of the remaining tax in dispute is paid, any attachment of bank accounts pursuant to the demand shall be released.

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 amount of tax in dispute? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this benefit due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. The revenue did not record any specific argument against this point, but the court's direction implies an acknowledgment of the petitioner's predicament. 2. Whether the stay on recovery of the balance amount should be open-ended, or if there should be a condition for filing the appeal once the Tribunal is constituted? The petitioner sought a stay on recovery. The revenue's position on this aspect is not explicitly recorded, but the court's balancing of equities suggests a need for a defined period for appeal filing.