The petitioner challenged the valuation under Bihar VAT 2005, seeking direction to include wood items and adopt uniform rates. The Court refused mandamus, holding that adding items to the schedule or enacting taxes is a legislative policy decision not for the judiciary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13225 of 2005
======================================================
RAJINDER SINGH, son of late Sardar Charanjit Singh, Proprietor, Bhargo Saw Mill, resident of Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt. Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar, SC 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
12 09-09-2020 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s:
“(i) That the schedule prescribing levy of Value Added Tax (VAT) at different rates in comparison to taxation of similar commodities in other States be quashed.
(ii) That the prescription of different rate of tax in comparison to taxation of similar commodities in different States to the extent it is contrary to the main design of the VAT be declared invalid.
(iii) That the respondents be directed to adopt uniform floor rates in respect of levy of Value Added Tax in terms of the white paper. (iv) For granting any other relief(s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.”
We are afraid that no mandamus can be issued in
the matter directing enactment of tax laws (VAT) in the State of Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13225 of 2005(12) dt.09-09-2020 2/2
It is the petitioner’s grievance that the items with which the petitioner is dealing, i.e., wood timber, ply board and laminated board are not included in the schedule issued under the VAT Ordinance, 2005.
It is a policy decision of the Legislators/State and not for this Court to get included any left out item therein.
As such, the petition being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
pallavi/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a mandamus can be issued to direct the State Legislature to enact tax laws or include specific items in the VAT schedule.
Whether the omission of wood, timber, and related items from the VAT schedule violates the petitioner's rights.
Whether the discrepancy in VAT rates across States for similar commodities is justiciable under the VAT Act.
Rajinder Singh
State of Bihar
Sanjay Karol
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
