Aditya Anushka Enterprises vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid. This decision was based on a prior judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, delivered on 08.09.2023 in CWJC No.9108 of 2021 and other analogous cases. The Court respectfully followed this precedent. The reasoning behind the holding is that the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) has already been affirmed by a competent bench of the High Court. Therefore, the present writ petition, which raises the same issue, is bound by that earlier decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Aditya Anushka Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents are various authorities of the Union of India and the State of Bihar, including the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes and the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals). The specific tax period and amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed seeking a determination on the legality of the aforementioned section of the Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid? The petitioner contended that Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is unconstitutional. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and the State of Bihar, argued in favour of the constitutional validity of the said section. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific arguments or legal precedents relied upon by either side, beyond stating that the question of constitutional validity was raised. However, it is evident that the core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and enforceability of Section 16(4) of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 16(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4277 of 2023 ====================================================== Aditya Anushka Enterprises a Proprietorship firm having its Place of Business at Bhasurari Rajpur Maidan, Bettiah through its Proprietor Namely Jeetendra Prasad Suman Male aged About 39 Years Son of Ramanayan Sah Resident of Ward No.15, Bhasurari, Bettiah, West Champaran-845455. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India at New Delhi.
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Central GST and CX, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Bettiah Circle, Bettiah.
The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate For the UOI : Dr. K.N.Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.