Mukesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (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 availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount 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 an order 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 directed that 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 the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107), the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken would be deemed stayed. The Court reasoned that this relief is necessary to balance equities, as the delay is attributable to the respondents. However, the Court also held 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. If the petitioner chooses not to avail this remedy within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court relied on a previous order in 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 of recovery under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondent authorities? 2. Whether the period for filing an appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act should be extended or tolled until the Tribunal is constituted and functional? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of a statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay of recovery solely due to the failure of the respondent authorities to constitute the Appellate Tribunal. They contended that this situation prevents them from availing the benefits provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, which are conditional upon filing an appeal and depositing a specified amount. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued an order under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the removal of difficulties, indicating that the limitation period for appeals would commence after the Tribunal's constitution. They did not dispute the petitioner's inability to file an appeal.