Seeks to amend Notification No 01/2017- Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Seeks to amend Notification No 02/2017- Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Seeks to amend Notification No 04/2017- Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Seeks to amend Notification No 05/2017- Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Mr. Siddhartha S. Sengupta, Advocate Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Advocate for the Petitioner.

The contention of the the petitioner is that the service of supply of manpower to an entity in Rajasthan by the petitioner is an inter-state transaction as the said supply has been undertaken by the petitioner from a place of business outside Rajasthan to a place in the State of Rajasthan. On the said inter-state transaction, he has duly deposited 18% of IGST and as such the demand of 18% CGST+RGST is unjustified and amounts to double taxation. As the grant of interim protection is concerned, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered by it twice, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is provided that the petitioner may apply for the refund of the IGST in the prescribed form as per the Act and the Rules

The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is rejected.

This Court has not entered into the merits of the matter. Both the parties are at liberty to raise all contentions which they may prefer to have raised before this Court. Notice is discharged.

The present writ petition is not maintainable and, accordingly, is dismissed as such without any order as to costs.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act. The order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petitioner to have e-way/TDS bill when the vehicle was detained on 03.03.2018 does not hold good and the order dated 10.12.2021 is set-aside to that extent.

The case of the petitioner in this instant writ petition is that the vehicles carrying taxable goods of the petitioner entered the State of Tripura a few days later than anticipated and during which period, the validity of the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired. This Court is of the opinion that the ‘e-Way bills’ had expired during the transit and the petitioner was not in a position to ask for its renewal to the competent authority when the vehicle entered into the territory of the State of Tripura. Accordingly, this instant writ petition is allowed

This Court is inclined to allow the writ petition and declare the action on the part of the respondent in blocking the ITC available to the petitioner in the electronic cash ledger to be arbitrary, bad in law and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said impugned action is set aside/quashed holding it to be illegal and the matter stands remitted back to the respondent for taking a fresh decision after giving a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner.