M/S Daewoo - L And T Jv vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Daewoo - L and T JV, 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 the 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 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 appeal 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 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, 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. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps were deemed stayed. The Court also clarified that this relief 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 a period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities 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.

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? The petitioner argued that they should not be deprived of this statutory remedy due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that the notification issued by the State authorities under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act acknowledges the issue and provides a basis for relief. The petitioner also relied on a previous order of the Court in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against granting the stay, but their actions led to the situation where the petitioner sought this relief.