Madhuri Bajpayee vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Madhuri Bajpayee, proprietor of M/s Madhuri Steel, 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 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 difficulties, stipulating that the limitation period for appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's President 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 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount, 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. Consequently, the recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken for it would be deemed stayed. However, the Court also opined that this relief cannot be open-ended. Therefore, 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 relied on a previous order in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal? The petitioner argued that they are being prevented from availing a statutory remedy and the consequent benefit of stay solely because the Tribunal is not functional, which is a situation caused by the respondents. They contended that the non-constitution of the Tribunal should not prejudice their right to seek a stay on recovery. The revenue or State acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and relied on the notification issued under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which addressed the commencement of the limitation period for appeals.