2021 (5) TMI 258 - HC - GST

Levy of Central GST and State GST - use of motor cycles, as contract carriages - N/N. 17 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Section 2(22), (25) and (26) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The position in law, as laid down in Notification 12 of 2017, specifically Sl. No.15 (b), would apply in regard to the taxability of the transaction, and the petitioner as well as other similarly placed stakeholders appear to have acquiesced with this position. The apprehensions levelled by the petitioner to the effect that other operators are adopting differing positions in regard to the taxability of business receipts stands assuaged, the respondent stating that necessary action would be taken to ensure that there is compliance, across the board. Petition closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandamus directing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider and decide representations on taxability of receipts under GST.

Analysis:
The petitioner, Uber India Systems Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to decide on representations regarding the taxability of receipts from its ride-hailing services under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that the prayer in the writ petition sought direction for uniformity in the levy of Central GST and State GST on the use of motor cycles as contract carriages. The court directed the respondent to hear the petitioner and other operators on the issue and pass orders within six weeks, regardless of the pending writ petition.

The respondents filed a counter stating that all major stakeholders, including Uber India, Ola Cabs, and Rapido, agreed during a hearing that services of transportation of passengers using motor cycles without a contract carriage permit are liable to GST. The counter also mentioned that different states have varying rules for issuing contract carriage permits for motor cycles used as bike taxis, and it is within the purview of state legislatures to decide on permit issuance. The counter emphasized that there is no ambiguity in the GST exemption notification and no action is required on the representations submitted by Uber India and others seeking clarification on the exemption entry.

The court observed that the position in law, as per Notification 12 of 2017, specifically Sl. No.15(b), would apply to the taxability of the transaction. The court noted that the petitioner and other stakeholders seemed to agree with this position, and any apprehensions regarding differing positions on taxability were addressed by the respondent's assurance of ensuring compliance across the board. The court concluded that the mandamus sought for had been achieved satisfactorily based on the submissions and counter, and thus, closed the writ petition without costs.