M/S Satyendra Kumar And Company Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Patna High Court, by a judgment dated 18.09.2023, has dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s Satyendra Kumar and Company Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Court respectfully followed a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court, passed on 08.09.2023 in CWJC No.9108 of 2021 and other analogous cases. This prior judgment had already answered the question of the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, the present Court found no reason to deviate from that established precedent. The ratio decidendi is that Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid, as determined by a prior judgment of the same High Court. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Satyendra Kumar and Company Construction Pvt. Ltd., 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 include various authorities from the Union of India and the State of Bihar, such as the Secretary, Department of Revenue, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Commissioner of State Tax, and the Chief Commissioner of Central Taxes. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid? The petitioner's contention is that this section is unconstitutional. The revenue's contention is that the section is constitutionally valid. The judgment indicates that this question has been previously answered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No.9108 of 2021 and other analogous cases, and the current bench is respectfully following that precedent. The arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue, beyond the assertion of unconstitutionality and constitutionality respectively, are not detailed in the provided text. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side are mentioned, other than the prior judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench.