Ritesh Infratech Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

Ritesh Infratech Private Limited (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 and obtain a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The respondent 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 period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's constitution. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, arguing they were deprived of their statutory remedy.

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 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 related steps would be deemed stayed. The Court also directed that this stay should not 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, 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 Court relied on a previous decision in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be denied 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 Appellate Tribunal by the respondent authorities? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, as they are prevented from filing their appeal and obtaining the stay solely because the Tribunal has not been constituted by the respondents. They contended that they should not suffer due to the inaction of the authorities. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents 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 difficulties arising from this situation. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's entitlement to a stay but rather presented the factual scenario and the remedial notification.