Upendra Kumar Sinha vs. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Central GST And Cx

Facts

The petitioner, Upendra Kumar Sinha, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 31.03.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST and CX (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner contended that he was exempted from GST liability under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as his construction work was limited to two specific projects: the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation and Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur. The petitioner argued that paragraph 12 of the said notification exempted him from GST. The petition sought to quash the order passed by Respondent No. 3 for allegedly violating this notification.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court allowed this prayer. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning for withdrawal is not recorded in the judgment. No specific finding was made on the interpretation of Notification No. 25/2012-ST or the validity of the order dated 31.03.2019. The ratio decidendi, therefore, pertains to the procedural aspect of allowing a withdrawal of a writ petition. Any interlocutory applications filed in the petition were also disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 31.03.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST and CX is liable to be quashed for violating Notification No. 25/2012-ST, specifically paragraph 12 thereof, thereby exempting the petitioner from GST liability? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is exempted from GST liability under Notification No. 25/2012-ST because his construction activities are confined to two specific locations: the Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation and Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur. He specifically relied on paragraph 12 of the aforementioned notification, asserting that it provides him with an exemption from GST. The order passed by Respondent No. 3, therefore, contravenes this exemption. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondents (Principal Chief Commissioner of Central GST and CX, Commissioner of Central GST and CX, and Additional Commissioner of Central GST and CX).