M/S Meet Motors vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Meet Motors, filed a writ petition seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal and 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 respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stipulating that the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered 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 must be extended the statutory benefit of stay. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also observed 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 the appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court noted that similar relief was granted in the case of 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(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the statutory benefit of stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax, as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. They contended that their inability to avail this remedy is solely due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Appellate Tribunal, and they should not be prejudiced by this administrative lapse. They relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the delay or inaction of the authorities. Revenue/State's contention: The respondent authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the situation, indicating that the limitation period for appeals would commence post-constitution. They did not dispute the petitioner's right to the statutory remedy in principle but highlighted the procedural impediment.