Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh, 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 the appeal and consequently from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance tax amount as provided 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 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 appeals would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) 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 Section 107(6) 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 steps taken towards it will be deemed stayed. The Court also held 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 does not avail this remedy within the specified period 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, upon depositing 20 percent of the remaining tax in dispute? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the inaction of the respondents in constituting the Tribunal. They argued that they should not be prejudiced by this administrative failure and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the deposit requirements. Revenue's argument: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the issue of limitation. While not explicitly arguing against the petitioner's claim for stay, their actions indicated an understanding of the procedural difficulties caused by the absence of the Tribunal.