M/S Bajrangi Enterprises Through One Of Its Partners Navin Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that the present writ application should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, which were disposed of on 11.07.2024. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's fair submission that a similar matter had already been decided by the Court, which was accepted by the respondents' counsel. The Court did not independently analyze the facts or legal provisions of the present case but relied on the precedent set by the earlier judgment. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned prior order. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by reference to a previous decision.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bajrangi Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order or action by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities. The specific tax period and the exact nature of the order or action are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Zaid Imam, stated that a similar matter had already been decided by the same High Court in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and analogous cases on July 11, 2024. The respondents' counsel, Mr. Amit Kumar, accepted this submission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, disposed of on 11.07.2024? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through its counsel Mr. Zaid Imam, argued that the present case is similar to W.P. (T) No. 1143 of 2021 and its analogous cases, which were decided by the Court. Therefore, the present petition should be disposed of in line with that previous decision. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsel, CGST, accepted the petitioner's submission that the matter is similar to the previously decided case and did not present any contrary arguments. No specific provisions of the CGST Act or Rules were explicitly discussed in the arguments presented in this excerpt.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (T) No. 270 of 2024
M/s Bajrangi Enterprises , Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
... Petitioner
Versus 1.Union of India 2.The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi 3.The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 4.The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi. 6.The Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise … Respondents
--------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, (Sr. Standing Counsel, CGST)
: Mr. Anurag Vijay, (Jr. Standing Counsel, CGST)
: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
--------- Order No.04/Dated: 18.07.2024
Heard Mr. Zaid Imam, learned counsel for the petitioner and and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Sr. Standing Counsel, CGST appearing for the R
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.