Uttarakhand High Court Says Taxpayer Seeking GST Installment Over Poor Finances Can Approach Commissioner

The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a GST-registered taxpayer seeking permission to pay tax dues in installments, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under the GST law. A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing a challenge to an order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Gopeshwar, Chamoli, by which a GST liability of over Rs 7.5 lakhs was fastened on the...

Income Tax Act | Multiple Presentations Of Proposal For Reopening U/S 148 After Rejection Not Permissible: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction. Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the...

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes GST Order After Authorities Ignored Adjournment Request While Assessee Was Abroad

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time. The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in...

Orders Under Omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 Post 8th Oct, 2024 Not Valid; No Savings Clause: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court stated that orders passed under omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 post 8th Oct, 2024 is not valid. The Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra stated that there was no scope for the department to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding. In this case, the assessee/petitioner who is...

No Provision Allows Coercive Action Before Pre-Intimation Notice: Uttarakhand HC Criticizes GST Dept For Negatively Blocking ITC

The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken. “The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok ...

Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable. Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a contract executed between the parties for the construction and renovation of the Jummagad Small Hydro Project. The period of completion was fixed at 15 months from the date of the Agreement. Due to the failure of the applicants to complete the...

On Recusal Of Arbitrator Appointed By Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act, Substitute Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 15(2): Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has held that on recusal of previously appointed Arbitrator appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act , a substitute Arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The present application under section 11 read with section 15 of the Arbitration Act has been filed, seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator after the recusal of the...

Value Of Free Fuel Can't Be Added To Value Of Taxable Supply U/S 15 Of CGST Act: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court held that when as per the agreement, the cost of fuel was to be borne by recipient, then such cost cannot be subjected to charge of GST by adding its value in the transaction value of GTA service.Pointing that the cost of fuel cannot be added in the account of the transporter, as was governed by the GST rules, the Division Bench comprising Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that “value of free fuel cannot be added to value of taxable supply under...

Uttarakhand High Court Set Aside Reassessment Proceedings Initiated against Amalgamated Company As It Became Non-Existent

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that PAN activation by a transferor company does not entitle revenue to issue a reassessment notice after the appointed date of amalgamation.The bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani has observed that the reassessment notice was given to the transferor company, which is a non-existent entity, after the appointed date, i.e., April 1, 2018. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act has been passed by the department against a non-existent entity.Delta...

Uttarakhand High Court Directs Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act To Educate Its Officers About Arbitration Law, To Avoid Flagrant Violation Of Arbitration Act

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council to organize workshops and seminars to educate its officers, who undertake arbitration proceedings, to equip themselves with the law of Arbitration. The court passed the said direction while hearing an appeal against the decision of the Commercial Court who had set aside the arbitral award passed by the Facilitation Council in the arbitration proceedings conducted under Section 18 of the...

Court Cannot Partly Set Aside Award In Absence Of Manifest And Patent Error, And Without A Finding As To Its Severability: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that in the absence of a manifest and patent error in the arbitral award, the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot interfere with the award, by partly upholding it and by disallowing the rest of the claims of the claimant. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe observed that the lower court had not given any finding as to whether the claims set aside by it...

Amount Paid Under Protest Prior To SCN , Consider As Pre -Deposit Under SVLDR Scheme: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the amount paid under protest, towards interest, prior to the issuance of show cause shall be considered as pre-deposit while disposing of the application for a waiver under the 'Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (SVLDR Scheme).The single bench of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra has observed that the statute does not make any distinction between the payment of taxes, interest thereon, or any penalty in the amount which has been deposited...