TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenge to Central Goods & Services Act 2017 Sections 17(5)(C) & (D) over double taxation and discrimination</h1> <h3>Hinganghat Integrated Textile Park Private Limited Versus Union of India and ors.</h3> The High Court issued notices to the parties in a case challenging Section 17(5)(C) and (D) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017 on grounds of ... Vires of Section 17(5)(C) and (D) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017 - double taxation - discrimination - HELD THAT:- Issue notice to the Attorney General of India, returnable on 16.12.2019 - Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 16.12.2019. Issues: Challenge to provision of Section 17(5)(C) and (D) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017 on grounds of double taxation and discrimination.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged Section 17(5)(C) and (D) of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, alleging double taxation and discrimination. The petitioner argued that the denial of credit for input goods and services used in the construction of malls for rent is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that despite being similarly situated with other establishments, they were being unfairly treated.2. The petitioner relied on a decision by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of M/s Safari Retrearts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chief Commissioner of CGST and Ors., where the court interpreted the provision in a manner favorable to the petitioner. The Orissa High Court had read down the provision instead of striking it down entirely, allowing the petitioner in that case to claim credit for input goods and services used in the construction and letting out of malls.3. The High Court issued notices to the Attorney General of India and the respondents, returnable on a specified date. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India waived the service of notice for respondent nos. 1 and 4. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on the specified date for a detailed hearing and examination of the legal arguments presented by both parties.This analysis highlights the key arguments made by the petitioner challenging the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, the reliance on a precedent set by the Orissa High Court, and the procedural steps taken by the High Court in response to the petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
