M/S Mahavir Automobiles 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 reached by respectfully following a previous judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court on 08.09.2023 in CWJC No.9108 of 2021 and other analogous cases. The reasoning behind this holding is that the Co-ordinate Bench had already adjudicated on the constitutional validity of this provision and found it to be in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, the present writ petition, raising the same issue, was dismissed based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahavir Automobiles, through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Sarita Devi, 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 the Union of India and various authorities of the State of Bihar, including the Commissioner BGST, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, and Additional Commissioner (Appeal). The specific tax period and amount in dispute are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history indicates this is a writ jurisdiction case.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid? The petitioner likely argued that this provision is unconstitutional, potentially infringing on fundamental rights or creating an arbitrary restriction. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and State authorities, would have contended for the constitutional validity of the said section. The judgment explicitly states that the question of constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was the central issue. The petitioner's specific arguments and the revenue's counter-arguments are not detailed, beyond the fact that the revenue's position prevailed.