Ms Gajanan Minerals Private Limited Through Its Director Kaushal Singhal vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Its Pr Secretary Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue
Held
The Court held that the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others v. Safari Retreats Private Limited and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 523. Consequently, the present petition, which assailed the constitutional validity of the said provision, was found to be sans merit. The Court dismissed the petition on this ground. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court is bound by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court on constitutional validity of statutory provisions. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court also made it clear that the petitioner was at liberty to avail of other remedies available under the law if they had any further grievances.
Facts
M/s. Gajanan Minerals Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents were the Union of India and various authorities of the Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise. The petition specifically assailed the constitutional validity of the aforementioned provision. The procedural history indicates that this was a writ petition filed directly before the High Court, and no specific tax period or amount in dispute was detailed in the provided judgment excerpt.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is constitutionally valid? The petitioner assailed the constitutional validity of this provision. The respondents, through their counsel, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others v. Safari Retreats Private Limited and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 523, to argue that the provision is valid. The Court was therefore required to decide whether the petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, had merit in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
Sections Cited
Section 17(5)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:JHHC:31125-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 2628 of 2020
M/s. Gajanan Minerals Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Works at B-47 & B-29, Ist Phase, Industrial Area, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Jamshedpur, District-Saraikela Kharswan-832109; through its Director Kaushal Singhal, aged about 33 years, son of Late Kailash Chand Singhal, resident of G2/4, Nishant Vihar Colony, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adiyapur, District-Saraikela Kharsawan.... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. North Block, New Delhi 110001. 2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India through its Secretary, having its office at North Block:, P.O. & P.S. North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. The Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, G.S.T. Building, Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum -
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.