Manth Green Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

Manth Green 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 (B.G.S.T.) Act. The petitioner was unable to file an appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, which 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. The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an 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 limitation period for appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's President entered office.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) 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 Section 107(6) 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. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken towards it were deemed to be stayed. However, the Court also held that this stay cannot be open-ended. The petitioner must file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and made 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 similar relief granted in the case of 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 Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, given that the delay is attributable to the respondents? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of the statutory remedy of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should commence only after the Tribunal is functional. The revenue/state acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order to address the issue of limitation, implicitly agreeing that the petitioner's inability to appeal was due to the administrative situation. The petitioner also relied on a previous order of the Court in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.