Anjali Intt Udyog vs. The State Of Bihar
Held
The Court, in its order dated 27.08.2025, noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously passed an order in an identical matter, CWJC No. 7580 of 2025, on 13.08.2025. Observing that the present case was similar to the aforementioned matter, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 in terms of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in CWJC No. 7580 of 2025 (Rounak Int Udyog vs. State of Bihar & Anr.). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The specific reasoning of the co-ordinate bench's judgment, which led to the setting aside of the order, is not detailed in this excerpt, but the principle applied is that similar matters should be decided consistently. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order.
Facts
The petitioner, Anjali Intt Udyog, through its proprietor Sri Yogendra Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 3). This order held the petitioner liable to pay ₹86,63,936.38 as tax, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2018-2019, under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They also sought a direction restraining coercive recovery measures during the pendency of the writ application.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, holding the petitioner liable for ₹86,63,936.38 as tax, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2018-2019 under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. They sought to quash this order and prevent any coercive recovery actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue or state respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10421 of 2025 ====================================================== Anjali Intt Udyog having its registered office at Baluwan, P.S. - Krishnagarh, Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar 802351 through its proprietor Sri Yogendra Singh, Male aged about 48 years Son of Bishwanath Singh Resident of Project Colony, Golakdih, Jharia, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 828111. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner of State Tax, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Kar Bhawan, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna- 800015. 2. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Shahabad Circle, Arrah, Bhojpur, Bihar, 802301. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Shahabad Circle- Arrah, Bhojpur, Bihar 802301. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shatabdi Sinha, Advocate Ms. Maria Nazir, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-07 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SIN
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 Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.