Gobinda Construction vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1123

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD
Gobinda Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
M/s D.V.Pathy (in 9108, 2854, 5636, 7478, 7666, 7745, 8569, 9733, 10044, 11373, 11852, 11864, 12013, 12102, 12211, 12258, 145, 2347, 2408, 2490, 2574, 2699, 2718, 2757, 2763, 2783, 3209, 3273, 10587, 10698); Gautam Kumar Kejriwal (in 4694, 6627, 6630, 6638, 9603, 9994, 2875, 7071, 8061); Anurag Saurav (in 5747, 9066, 9566, 17065, 12840, 2078, 2187); Mohit Agarwal (in 763, 10987, 11053, 259); Prince Kumar Mishra (in 3614); Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi (in 1853, 1860, 1867, 1890, 4993, 5013, 5058, 5128, 5160-5162, 5246, 5304, 5406, 5408, 5701, 5703, 6397, 7222, 9654, 12098, 12368, 12459, 12479, 16659); Vikas Kumar (in 2200); Naresh Chandra Verma (in 5802, 11828); Parijat Saurav (in 9337); Roona (in 9515); Prabhat Ranjan (in 9553); Satish Chandra Jha 3 (in 13190, 13521); Abhay Kumar Thakur (in 13518, 1753); Sriram Krishna (in 13687); Ranjeet Kumar (in 16388, 16396); Nishant Ranjan (in 16478);Alok Kumar (in 17387, 7574); Dheeraj Kumar (in 1862); Naman Nayak (in 9927); Manju Jha ((in 4264, 9994)
M/s Dr. K.N. Singh (Asg) (in 9108, 2854, 4694, 5636, 5747, 6627, 6630, 6638, 7478, 7666, 7745, 8569, 9066, 9566, 9603, 9733, 9994, 10044, 11373, 11852, 11864, 12102, 12211, 12258, 17065, 145, 763, 2347, 2408, 2490, 2574, 2699, 2718, 2757, 2763, 2875, 3209, 3273); Vikash Kumar (SC11) (in 1853, 1860, 1867, 1890, 2000, 2783, 4993, 5013, 5058, 2783, 4993, 5013, 5058, 5160, 5162, 5246, 5304, 5703, 6397, 9654, 16659, 17387); Additional Solicitor General (in 4264, 5802, 7071, 8061, 9337, 9553, 10587, 10698, 10987, 11053, 11828, 12840, 13190, 13518, 13521, 13687, 16388, 16396, 259, 1753, 1862, 2078, 2187, 7574, 9994); Vivek Prasad (GP 7) (in 5128, 5161, 5406, 5408, 5701, 7222, 9515, 12098, 12368, 12459, 12479, 16478); Raghwanand (Ga 11), Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11 (in 9927)

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J. – Common challenge in the present batch of writ applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners is to the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (‘CGST Act’ in short) and Section 16(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘BGST Act’ in short) which deny entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after due date of furnishing of returns under the respective Sections 39 of the said Acts, for the month of September following the end of financial year to which such invoice or invoice relating to such debit note pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier; same being violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. Alternatively, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the conditions as prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act are merely procedural in nature and cannot override the substantive conditions for availing ITC prescribed under Section 16(1) and Section 16(2) of the said Acts. It is their case that because of the non obstante c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1123

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASADGobinda Construction – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, MADHURESH PRASAD
Gobinda Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent