M/S Trilochan Pandey vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Trilochan Pandey, a proprietary concern, 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 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) under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act, stating that the limitation period for filing an appeal would commence only after the Tribunal's President 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 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 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 themselves. The recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken in this regard would 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 fails to file an appeal within the period specified upon 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 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 respondent authorities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay of recovery due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. They contended that they should not suffer due to the respondents' failure to establish the Tribunal. The petitioner relied on the principle that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the inaction of the authorities. Revenue's contention: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T. Act to address the issue of limitation. They did not contest the petitioner's right to seek relief in the present writ petition.