Rohit Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar, 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 Act (B.G.S.T. Act). 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 period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The petitioner sought directions from the High Court to address this situation.

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 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute (in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act), the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay. Recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard would be deemed stayed. The Court reasoned that this relief is necessary to balance equities and prevent prejudice to the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that this 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, observing all statutory requirements. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the period specified after 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. 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? (Question of law) 2. Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act should commence only after the constitution and functioning of the Tribunal, as suggested by the respondents' notification? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are being prevented from availing their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not be penalized for this administrative inaction and should be granted the benefit of stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, indicating that the limitation period for appeals would commence after the Tribunal's constitution. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim for stay but relied on the notification regarding the commencement of the limitation period.