M/S Mamta H.P. Gas Gramin Bitrak, Ghelar, Madhepura vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 19(1)(g) or Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' submissions that the provision imposes unreasonable restrictions or is violative of Articles 302 and 13. The Court reasoned that fiscal legislation with uniform application cannot be violative of Article 19(1)(g). Relying on Supreme Court decisions in ALD Automotive Private Limited and Jayam and Company, the Court affirmed that ITC is a concession that can only be availed by strictly complying with the conditions stipulated in the statute. The Court rejected the argument to read down the provision as directory, emphasizing the clear language of Section 16. The concession of ITC is dependent on fulfilling the conditions laid down, including those in sub-section (4). Therefore, the provision is not inconsistent with or in derogation of any fundamental right.

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 details of the orders or actions under challenge, the tax periods, and the amounts in dispute are not explicitly detailed for each petitioner in the provided excerpt. The procedural history primarily involves the filing of these writ petitions before the High Court.

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 fundamental rights? 2. Whether sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act imposes unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on the right to freedom of trade and profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and is thus violative of Article 302 and Article 13 of the Constitution? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act imposes unreasonable and disproportionate restrictions on their right to freedom of trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g). They argued that there is no rationale behind fixing a cut-off date for filing returns and that the provision is violative of Article 302 and Article 13 of the Constitution. They also feebly argued that the provision should be read down as directory and not mandatory. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the provided excerpt, but the Court's reasoning relies on precedents and the plain language of the statute.