IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8546 of 2010 ***** 1. ARVIND KUMAR S/O SRI KISHORI SHARMA R/O MOHALLA- CHHOTAKI DELHA, P.S.- DELHA, DISTT.- GAYA. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 4. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GAYA, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA DEPARTMENT OF A.E.O., DISTT.- GAYA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA DEPARTMENT OF R.E.O., DISTT.- GAYA 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA DEPARTMENT OF B.C.D. BUILDING, DISTT.- GAYA 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION, DISTT.- GAYA. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 21.6.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts the submission advanced on behalf of the State by learned Additional Advocate General-III that similar matters involving vires of Section 41 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have been decided by judgment and order dated 21.5.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9885 of 2008 (Abdul - 2 - Majeed Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 10037 of 2007 (Pareek Power Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous cases and the vires of the said provision of the Act has been upheld. In view of the aforesaid submission and the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the State, this writ petition is found to be without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)