M/S Prl Projects And Infrastructure Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s PRL Projects and Infrastructure Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against an order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals). The petitioner intended to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (B.G.S.T.) Act. However, the non-constitution of the Tribunal prevented the petitioner from filing the appeal and availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount, as contemplated 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 an order for removal of difficulties, stating that the period of limitation for appeal would commence only after the constitution of the Tribunal.

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. The Court reasoned that the petitioner cannot be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. Consequently, the recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken for it would be stayed. The Court also clarified 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 avail this remedy within the period specified after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court relied on a previous decision in SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, given that the delay is attributable to the respondents? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Appellate Tribunal. They contended that they should not be penalized for a situation caused by the authorities themselves and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the conditions stipulated for it, as per Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act. Respondent's Argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued an order for removal of difficulties under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, which addressed the issue of limitation. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the stay, beyond acknowledging the factual situation.