M/S Trimurti Concerns PVT. Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Trimurti Concerns Pvt. Limited, 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 petitioner was unable to file the appeal due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, which also 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 respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and 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 limitation period for filing appeals would commence only after the Tribunal's President entered office. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court.

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 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. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps would be deemed stayed. The Court also held that this relief of stay cannot 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. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The Court cited 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 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 respondents? The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the benefit of stay upon depositing the prescribed amount, as their inability to appeal is a direct consequence of the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not suffer due to administrative inaction. The revenue/State acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the issue of limitation periods. The Court had to decide if the petitioner was entitled to the stay despite the absence of the Tribunal and the implications of the notification issued by the State.