Gobinda Construction Vs Union of India through the Secretary (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court addressed multiple writ applications challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) and the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (BGST). The petitioners argued that the section, which restricts the entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC) beyond specific timelines, violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. They sought either a declaration that Section 16(4) was procedural and not overriding, or an interpretation limiting its application to invoices received after the financial year-end. Additionally, they contested the classification of GSTR-3B as a valid return under Section 39(1), arguing that retrospective amendments to CGST Rules were ultra vires the Act.
The court observed that the language of Section 16(4) is clear and unambiguous, emphasizing its mandatory nature. It upheld the provision as constitutionally valid, finding no inconsistency with Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A. The court concluded that the concession of ITC is conditional on strict compliance with statutory timelines and dismissed the writ applications, reinforcing the statutory framework governing ITC claims. This judgment reaffirms the importance of adherence to procedural requirements under the GST laws.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
