ORSON HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA
GST
2018 (12) TMI 588 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. J81 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 7-12-2018
R\/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18982 of 2018
GST
MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR A. P. THAKER, JJ.
\nFor The Petitioner (s) : MR VINAY SHRAFF, ADVOCATE with MR.AVINASH PODDAR(9761), MR.VISHAL J DAVE, MR NIPUN SINGHVI(9653), MS HIRAL MEHTA, ADVOCATES
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
\n1. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 \/ Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India, to the extent the said provision restricts validity period of the e-way bill in terms of distance to be travelled in a day.
\n2. Mr. Vinay Shraff, learned advocate with Mr. Vishal Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ixed, the order has been passed prior to the said date, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in breach of sub-section (4) of section 129 of the Act. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ion (8) thereof, which provides that where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) pays the said tax along with interest payable under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to twentyfive per cent of such tax within thirty days of issue of the notice, all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. It was submitted that therefore, even in the case of fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the statute provides for payment of penalty equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the tax within thirty days from the date of the notice. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ORSON HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIAGST2018 (12) TMI 588 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. J81 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 7-12-2018R\/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18982 of 2018 GSTMS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : MR VINAY SHRAFF, ADVOCATE with MR.AVINASH … Continue reading “ORSON HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15465\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. It was further pointed out that penalty is sought to be imposed under section 129(1) of the Act, whereas section 122(1)(xiv) of the Act provides that where a taxable person who transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in this behalf, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or the tax not deducted under section 51 or short deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not collected under section 52 or short collected or collected but not paid to the Government, etc., whichever is higher.
\n5. Reference was made to section 73 of the Act, which provides for determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for any reason other than <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. It was further submitted that the statute is required to be read as a whole and that section 129 of the Act ought not to have been read in isolation. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra and others v. Mukundi Lal and others, AIR 2002 SC 829, wherein the court has held that a provision in the statute is not to be read in isolation. It has to be read with other related<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n