Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte appellate order dated January 14, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated January 13, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Jamui. The original order imposed liability for tax, penalty, and interest under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to April 2021. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and restrain recovery of the disputed amounts. The primary grievance was the inability to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal due to its non-constitution.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal by the respondents. Following the precedent set in Angel Engicon Private Limited vs. the State of Bihar & Anr., the Court directed that if the petitioner deposits 20 percent of the remaining disputed tax amount, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6), the recovery of the balance amount shall be stayed. The Court emphasized that this stay is conditional upon the petitioner filing 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 time after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed according to law. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, when the delay in availing the appeal remedy is attributable to the respondents? The petitioner argued that they are being deprived of a statutory remedy due to the respondents' failure to constitute the Tribunal, preventing them from accessing the stay provisions under Section 112(8) and (9) upon depositing the prescribed amounts. The petitioner relied on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to administrative inaction. The State's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but the court's order implies an acknowledgment of the non-constitution of the Tribunal and the resulting difficulties.