Pratibha Advertising PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Pratibha Advertising Pvt. Ltd., 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 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 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 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 reasoned that the petitioner should not suffer due to the administrative failure of the respondents. Consequently, upon deposit of 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act, the recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken for it 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 the appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed as per 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(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 being prevented from availing a statutory remedy due to the inaction of the respondents in constituting the Tribunal. They contended that they should not be penalized for this delay and should be granted the benefit of stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party should not suffer due to the administrative failure of the authorities. The respondents acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification regarding the commencement of the limitation period. No specific argument was recorded for the respondents beyond this acknowledgement and the notification.