M/S Ranjeet Mishra, A Proprietary Concern vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ranjeet Mishra, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (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 obtaining a stay on the recovery of the balance tax amount as provided under Section 112(8) and (9) of the 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 appeal would commence only after the President of the Tribunal entered office.

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 disputed tax amount, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6). The Court reasoned that the petitioner should not be deprived of this benefit due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. The recovery of the balance amount and any related steps were deemed to be stayed. The Court also directed that the petitioner must file their appeal under Section 112 once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, within a period to be specified. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the stipulated period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed as per 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, considering the State's role in the delay? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents. They relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the administrative inaction of the authorities. Revenue's contention: The respondent State authorities acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and had issued a notification to address the issue of limitation. They did not appear to contest the petitioner's right to seek relief in light of the circumstances.