Uttarakhand HC voids state GST orders after rule deletion
Dehradun:
Uttarakhand high court
set aside orders passed by the state GST department, ruling that no action could be taken under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, after its omission on Oct 8, 2024, as there was no saving clause allowing for pending proceedings to continue.
A division bench comprising chief justice G Narendar and justice Alok Mahra passed the order while disposing of a case filed by M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers, a partnership firm. The petitioner challenged the validity of Rule 96(10), calling it ultra vires to section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, read with section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The firm, which manufactures gold bars and jewellery under Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was audited by officers from the state goods and services tax department. The department alleged the assessee had wrongly claimed a refund of Rs 1,05,25,755 under IGST. Following the audit, the department issued a show cause notice and later confirmed the demand. The assessee challenged the proceedings, arguing that they were based on an alleged violation of Rule 96(10), which had already been omitted from the CGST Rules from Oct 8, 2024. It contended that no action could be taken under a rule that no longer existed in the statute. In response, the department said that the show cause notice was issued while the rule was still in force and that the omission would only operate prospectively. Hence, proceedings initiated before the rule's deletion should be allowed to continue. The bench noted that the Kerala high court had already declared the rule ultra vires in the case of Sance Laboratories Pvt Ltd vs Union of India. Following this, the rule was deleted through a notification in Oct 2024. The court said it would be redundant to again declare it ultra vires to section 16 of the IGST Act. The bench concluded that since the rule had been unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, all actions based on it must cease from the date of its deletion. It allowed the petition and set aside the state GST department's order issued on Feb 3 this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Ahmedabad Plane Crash: How Much Compensation Do Victims' Families Really Get?
Ahmedabad, New Delhi: When Air India Flight AI171 fell from the skies just moments after takeoff from Ahmedabad, the wreckage did not only raise questions about the safety of Boeing's Dreamliner fleet. It fuelled a debate – what do grieving families actually receive when disaster strikes at 30,000 feet? Onboard the ill-fated flight headed to London's Gatwick were 242 souls – 230 passengers, 10 crew members and two pilots. Among them was Gujarat's former Chief Minister Vijay Rupani. For Boeing, this marks the first time the Dreamliner has suffered a crash. But the company is no stranger to tragedy. Its 737 Max series has crashed multiple times, killing over 500 people between 2018 and 2024 – even after major design overhauls. So, in the face of such devastation, what is the price of a life lost mid-air? For international flights like AI171, compensation is governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999. India signed on years ago. Under this treaty, the families of deceased or injured passengers are entitled to up to 128,821 Special Drawing Rights – a complicated financial term that roughly works out to Rs 1.4 crore per passenger. But here is where it gets important. If it is proven that the crash happened due to airline negligence – say, a technical fault ignored, improper maintenance or failure to follow safety procedures, then there is no upper limit. The compensation can skyrocket. This payout is usually split between the airline and its insurance partner. But for families, no amount can fill the void. Who pays the compensation – the airline or the insurance company? The short answer is both. In most cases, the airline is responsible for initiating compensation under international aviation laws. But the actual funds usually come from a combination of the airline and its insurance company. That is why major airlines are required to carry large-scale liability coverage. There is also another layer – travel insurance. Passengers who opted for personal coverage can unlock additional payouts. These can range from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 1 crore for accidental death and up to Rs 10 lakh for permanent disability. While the Montreal Convention specifically covers international routes, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) recommends that airlines apply similar compensation frameworks for domestic passengers as well. In recent years, many Indian carriers have voluntarily aligned with this approach, offering matching coverage to families of victims. For some families, this insurance becomes the only financial cushion in the middle of emotional collapse. As investigators dig through the charred remains of AI171, aviation analysts are already saying what many do not want to admit – this may have been a man-made disaster. A failure not of machines but of judgment, oversight and accountability. Families are mourning. Legal teams are mobilising. And the question echoing through India's airports and global aviation boards is this: Why was not this prevented? Because when a plane falls from the sky, it is not only metal that hits the ground, it is also the trust.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
New dispute breaks out between GIPE & parent body SIS over financial control
Pune: Tensions between Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics (GIPE) and its parent body, Servants of India Society (SIS), flared up once again after both indulged in allegations and counter-allegations related to a bank account. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At a press conference on Thursday, GIPE's officiating deputy registrar Vishal Gaikwad, accused SIS of wrongdoing, including freezing its account. However, SIS president Damodar Sahoo, who later met reporters, countered the charges. Gaikwad said, "We came to know 3-4 days ago that Sahoo wrote to the bank to freeze the account from which the staff salaries are disbursed. But we met the bank's officials and made it operational." Sahoo, on the other hand, stated that it was a joint account with two signatories, SIS and GIPE. However, GIPE had removed SIS's signatory without any prior notification. He said, "Hence, we wrote to the bank to freeze the account to know what happened as this has been a joint account since inception and there have always been two signatories and one cannot randomly delete one signatory." In April, an FIR was lodged by GIPE against SIS's former secretary Milind Deshmukh, accusing him of misappropriating funds worth Rs 1.42 crore. Gaikwad said that he wrote to the police asking them to add Sahoo's name to the FIR. Sahoo said he has no information about GIPE's letter, nor have the police contacted him. In view of their allegations against SIS of misusing GIPE funds, Gaikwad said that the institute wrote to the charity commissioner requesting suspension of the SIS leadership and appointment of an administrator. Sahoo alleged that GIPE has no right to make such a demand since SIS is its parent body. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A few months ago, SIS had accused interim VC Shankar Das of allegedly bypassing procedures in faculty and staff recruitment at GIPE which escalated to the SIS removing Sanjeev Sanyal as chancellor and appointing an interim chancellor. Sanyal hit back, alleging lack of transparency in financial transactions of SIS. In a series of posts on X, Sanyal said that JNU vice-chancellor Santishree Pandit will inquire into the allegations against Das after which Sahoo called it all a misunderstanding and Sanyal was reinstated. Pandit's committee, which comprised two more members from SPPU, conducted an inquiry and gave a clean chit to the recruitment process taken up by Das. She said, "We had two online meetings and one in-person meeting at GIPE. We looked at all the documents and found that no rules of UGC or the state govt were flouted during the appointments made during Das's tenure. Sahoo withdrew his complaint against Das. A public notice was issued requesting submission of any evidence related to the complaint before the committee. However, Sahoo did not present or submit any documents before the committee. None of the allegations could stand scrutiny, and the process documents proved beyond doubt that all rules and regulations were followed." Pandit added that there was another complaint from a faculty member at GIPE alleging irregularities in the appointments. "We admitted the complaint and went through its allegations. We also gave the professor a fair hearing. However, since no rules were flouted, we gave a clean chit to Das and submitted the report to the chancellor a month and a half ago," she said. Sahoo said that he had not withdrawn the complaint, and was not called to give evidence. "I have not even been given a copy of the report nor was my side heard," he added. The SIS president said an advisory body was created to bridge the souring relationship between GIPE and SIS and keep communication channels open. However, Gaikwad said there is no provision for such a committee in SIS's byelaws. New VC Soon Both Gaikwad and Sahoo confirmed that the selection process for a new vice-chancellor for Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics has been completed and the institute will soon have a new head. Sahoo said, "I am very hopeful that under able leadership and guidance, our new VC will shoulder the responsibility of GIPE and render his best services for all-round development of the institute and re-establish a cordial relationship between SIS and GIPE."
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Robbers steal gold, jewellery worth Rs 40 lakh in northwest Delhi
New Delhi, Jun 12 (PTI) Police have launched an investigation after a 42-year-old employee of a Chandni Chowk-based jeweller was attacked and robbed of gold and jewellery worth about Rs 40 lakh near Kohat Enclave Metro Station in northwest Delhi, officials said. According to police, the incident took place when the victim, Subhash, and his colleague, Gopal, had gone to the area around 3 pm to show jewellery samples to clients.
