Ranjit Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

CWJC/4690/2023HC PatnaGSTCNR BRHC01021977202316 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY,THE CHIEF JUSTICE-2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The respondents included the Union of India, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the State of Bihar, the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), and the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is not detailed, other than the filing of the writ petition itself.

Held

The Court held that Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid. This decision follows the dictum laid down in the case of Gobinda Construction v. Union of India & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 9108 of 2021). The Court did not provide detailed reasoning for this finding in the present judgment, relying entirely on the precedent. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the rejection of the writ petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid? The petitioner's arguments are not recorded. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as the Court rejected the writ petition based on a prior judgment.

Sections Cited

Section 16(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4690 of 2023 ====================================================== Ranjit Kumar Son of Ramnarayan Pandey, permanent resident of village - Chaita, Police Station - Angarghat, District - Samastipur, at present residing at Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its office at Room No. 46, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, having its Office at Room No. 46, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of State Tax, Bihar having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Tirthut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 For the UOI : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC. CGST & CX ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 16-01-2024 In the light of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9108 of 2021 titled as Gobinda Construction v. Union of India & Ors., the present writ petition stands rejected following the dictum therein; finding Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax and Bihar Goods and Patna High Court CWJC No.4690 of 2023(3) dt.16-01-2024 2/2 Services Tax Act as constitutionally valid.

aditya/- (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Rajiv Roy, J) U

Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.