Lakshmi Narayan Yadav vs. 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 Articles 19(1)(g) or 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments that the provision imposes unreasonable restrictions or is violative of fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that fiscal legislation with uniform application cannot be violative of Article 19(1)(g), and the question of violation of Articles 302 and 13 does not arise. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in ALD Automotive Private Limited and Jayam and Company, the Court reiterated that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a concession, and the conditions stipulated in the statute, including time limits, must be strictly complied with. The Court rejected the submission to read down the provision or declare it directory, stating that the clear language of Section 16 mandates fulfillment of its conditions for availing ITC. Therefore, the writ applications were dismissed.

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 tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The procedural history leading to these writ petitions is not elaborated upon, but it is evident that the petitioners are seeking relief from the High Court against the revenue authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act, which imposes a time limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), is constitutionally valid and does not violate fundamental rights? (Question of law) 2. Whether sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act imposes an unreasonable and disproportionate restriction 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? (Question of law) 3. Whether the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST/BGST Act should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that sub-section (4) of Section 16 imposes unreasonable restrictions on their right to freedom of trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g) and is violative of Articles 302 and 13 of the Constitution. They contended that there is no rationale behind fixing a cut-off date for filing returns and that the provision should be read down. They also argued that the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 16 should be declared directory, not mandatory. Revenue/State's arguments: The State, through the learned Advocate General, referred to Supreme Court decisions in ALD Automotive Private Limited and Jayam and Company, which upheld similar provisions in other tax statutes, emphasizing that ITC is a concession and its conditions must be strictly complied with. The State did not explicitly argue on the directory vs. mandatory nature but relied on the plain language of Section 16.