Kalpana Medical Hall Vs Union of India
Date: July 1, 2024
Subject Matter
Petitioner cannot be deprived of the stay benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal
Summary
In this case, a petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief due to the non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under the B.G.S.T. Act, which hindered their ability to appeal an order as prescribed in Section 112. The petitioner sought to obtain statutory remedies, including a stay of tax recovery. The court noted that the state authorities had acknowledged the lack of a constituted Tribunal and had issued a notification (Order No. 09/2019) to address this issue, stating that the limitation period for filing an appeal would only commence once the Tribunal is constituted. The court decided to grant the petitioner a stay of recovery of tax amounts upon the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount, along with amounts previously deposited. This stay was granted to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of benefits due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The court further specified that the petitioner must file the appeal formally once the Tribunal is constituted and that if the petitioner fails to do so within the specified time period after the Tribunal's establishment, the authorities could proceed further with legal action in accordance with the law. With these clarifications and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs.
2. The petitioner essentially is desirous of availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “B.G.S.T. Act”).
3. However, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act.
4. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is also prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112.
5. The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 09/2019-State Tax, S. O. 399, dated 11.12.2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the B.G.S.T Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the B.G.S.T Act, enters office.
6. This Court is, therefore, inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition in the following terms:-
(i) Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed. It is not in dispute that similar relief has been granted by this Court in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others in W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022.
(ii) The statutory relief of stay, on deposit of the statutory amount, however in the opinion of this Court, cannot be open ended. For balancing the equities, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal.
(iii) In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act before the Tribunal within the period which may be specified upon constitution of the Tribunal, the respondent- Authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
7. With the above liberty, observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.