M/S Ankur Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ankur Enterprises, 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. However, the petitioner was unable to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal due to its non-constitution. This prevented the petitioner 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, upon depositing the stipulated pre-deposit. The respondent 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.

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). 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 deemed stayed. The Court also directed that the petitioner must file their appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional, observing statutory requirements. If the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the period specified upon the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed as per law. The Court relied on a similar relief 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 of recovery of the balance amount of tax under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, considering the respondents' role in this delay? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of their statutory remedy of appeal and the consequential benefit of stay on recovery due to the failure of the respondents to constitute the Tribunal. They contended that they should not suffer due to the respondents' inaction and should be granted the stay upon fulfilling the pre-deposit requirements. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the stay. However, the revenue acknowledged the non-constitution of the Tribunal and issued a notification to address the issue of limitation.