M/s Surbhi Enterprises Vs The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1153 of 2024

======================================================

M/s Surbhi Enterprises A proprietorship firm having its place of business at Station Road, Fatwah, Patna, Bihar - 803201 through its proprietor namely Rajesh Kumar, male aged about 45 years, Son of Shiv Nath Sah resident of Station Road, Fatuha, Fatwah, Patna, Bihar - 803201, District Patna - 803201.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union Of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, government of India at New Delhi.

¶7

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna East Division, Patna.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna City East Circle, Patna City.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Anshman Singh, Senior SC, CGST & CX For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶12

Date : 22-01-2024

¶13

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multifarious reliefs.

¶14

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").

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.1153 of 2024 dt.22-01-2024 2/4

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

This Court is, therefore, inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition in the following terms:-

¶20

(i) Subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.1153 of 2024 dt.22-01-2024

¶22

3/4

¶23

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 nonconstitution 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 C.W.J.C. No. 15465 of 2022 .

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.1153 of 2024 dt.22-01-2024 4/4

¶27

would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.

¶28

(iv) If the above order is complied with and a sum equivalent to 20 per cent of the remaining amount of the tax in dispute is paid then, if there is any attachment of the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to the demand, the same shall be released.

¶29

With the above liberty, observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶31

( Rajiv Roy, J)

¶32

Sudha/aditya

¶33

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.01.2024. Transmission Date

M/s Surbhi Enterprises v. The Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Surbhi Enterprises v. The Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Vs The Union of India

Dr. Poonam Singh, Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Shahid Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ms. Madhav Construction Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Narayan Mandal Vs The Union of India