9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 395 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith vehicle - E-way bill in the State of Uttar Pradesh not produced - Effect of N/N. 1359 dated 20.09.2017 - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of M/S. HARLEY FOODS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS 2018 (11) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that after issuance of notification no. 177 dated 06.02.2018 the notification no.138 dated 30.01.2018 was rescinded which made effective notification no.1359 (4th Amendment) to GST Rules 2017 with effect from 01.02.2018 and the effect and operation of the notification no.1359 dated 20.09.2017 stands rescinded. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is accorded three weeks time to file response in the matter. Rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within a week. List this matter on 11th August 2021.
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of a circular issued by the Commissioner of State Tax under the UPGST Act regarding e-way bills and TDF. Analysis: 1. Validity of Circular by Commissioner of State Tax: The petitioner challenged the validity of a circular issued by the Commissioner of State Tax regarding the e-way bills and Transit Declaration Form (TDF) under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner exceeded his authority by issuing the circular, which allegedly usurped the rule-making power of the legislature. The petitioner contended that the circular could not revive a notification that had already been amended and challenged the circular's validity as ultra vires to the UPGST Act and Rules 2017. 2. Legal Framework and Notifications: The judgment delved into the legal framework under the UPGST Act, emphasizing the powers vested in the State Government, the Commissioner, and the rule-making process. The court analyzed a series of notifications issued under the UPGST Act, starting from the initial notification dated 21.07.2017, which introduced e-way bills and TDFs. Subsequent notifications, particularly No. 1359 dated 20.09.2017 and No. 138 dated 30.01.2018, amended and rescinded earlier notifications, impacting the validity and operation of the e-way bills and TDFs. 3. Interpretation of Notifications and Rescission: The court interpreted the notifications in question, highlighting the sequence of events leading to the rescission of earlier notifications related to e-way bills and TDFs. The judgment noted the amendment introduced by Notification No. 1359 dated 20.09.2017 and the subsequent rescission of Notification No. 138 dated 30.01.2018, affecting the effectiveness of the e-way bills under the UPGST Act. The court concluded that the effect and operation of Notification No. 1359 dated 20.09.2017 stood rescinded after subsequent notifications. 4. Precedents and Judicial Interpretation: The petitioner cited precedents from previous cases, such as Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., Satyendra Goods Transport Co. vs. State of U.P., and Ramesh Chand Kannu Mal vs. State of U.P., to support their argument regarding the validity of the circular. These cases were referred to in relation to similar issues concerning the interpretation and application of notifications and rules under the UPGST Act. The court acknowledged these precedents while considering the arguments presented by the petitioner. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the circular issued by the Commissioner of State Tax under the UPGST Act, analyzing the legal framework, notifications, their interpretation, and the impact on the validity of e-way bills and TDFs. The court considered precedents from previous cases to inform its decision-making process, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and the rule-making authority under the UPGST Act.
|
