M/S. Reliance Corporate It Park LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. (the petitioner) 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 petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. This prevented them 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 amounts. The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stipulating that the limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution and the entry of its President into 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 earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner shall be extended the statutory benefit of stay. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken for it will be deemed stayed. The Court also noted that this relief is granted in light of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and is not 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 becomes 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 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 by the respondent authorities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they are being prevented from availing their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Appellate Tribunal. They argued that they should not suffer due to the respondents' inaction and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements under Section 112(8). Revenue's Argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the situation. While not explicitly recorded as an argument against the petitioner's claim for stay, their actions and the notification indicate an attempt to manage the situation arising from the Tribunal's non-existence.