M/S Sri Ganesh Pharma vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act is constitutionally valid. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments that the provision is violative of Article 19(1)(g) or Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that fiscal legislation with uniform application cannot be considered violative of Article 19(1)(g), and the question of violation of Article 302 or Article 13 does not arise. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in ALD Automotive Private Limited and Jayam and Company, the Court emphasized that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a concession granted by the statute, and its conditions must be strictly complied with. The Court rejected the argument to read down the provision, stating that the clear language of Section 16 mandates compliance with its conditions, including sub-section (4). Therefore, the provision is not inconsistent with fundamental rights. The Court dismissed the writ applications.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including Gobinda Construction, Shtrudhan Kumar Amit Kumar, Shiva Escorts, Komal Medical Agency, M/s Ram Kishun Saw Mill Trading and Company, Shanti Motors, Mrityunjay Kumar (M/s J.M.C.M. Sales Patna), Neelam Automobiles, and Nidhi Trading Company, filed writ petitions before the Patna High Court. These petitions challenged actions or orders related to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The specific orders or actions under challenge and the tax periods involved are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The procedural history leading to these writ petitions is also not elaborated upon in the excerpt.

Key Issues

1. Whether sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act, which imposes a cut-off date for claiming input tax credit (ITC), is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade and profession) or Article 300-A (right to property) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that sub-section (4) of Section 16 imposes unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on their right to freedom of trade and profession, making it violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 302 of the Constitution, and in conflict with Article 13. They argued there is no rationale behind fixing a cut-off date for filing returns. They also feebly argued that the provision should be read as directory and not mandatory. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents did not present specific arguments in the provided excerpt, but the Court's reasoning relied on Supreme Court decisions upholding similar provisions in other tax statutes.