M/S Dell International Services INDIA Private Limited vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s Dell International Services India Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the Tribunal had not been constituted, preventing the petitioner from filing an appeal and consequently 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 a notification 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 President of the Tribunal entered office.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner must 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 a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to any amount deposited earlier 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. Consequently, the recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard were deemed to be stayed. The Court also noted that similar relief had been granted in another case. However, to balance equities, the Court directed that the petitioner must 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 respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The issue of the exact period for filing the appeal after constitution was left to be determined upon the Tribunal's establishment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, upon depositing 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the non-constitution of the Tribunal should not prejudice their right to seek a stay on recovery, especially when they are willing to comply with the deposit requirements. Revenue's Contention: The respondents acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the notification issued under Section 172. While not explicitly arguing against the stay, their actions and the context imply a reliance on the statutory provisions and the procedural hurdles created by the non-functional Tribunal.