Uttarakhand High Court Strikes Down Water Tax On Hydropower, Calls It Tax On Electricity Generation

The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down a state law that required hydropower companies to pay a tax for using river water to generate electricity, holding that the levy was effectively a tax on electricity generation, which the State cannot impose. Deciding on a reference arising from an earlier split verdict, Justice Alok Kumar Verma opined: “It has been found in the earlier analysis that the Act imposes a tax on the generation of electricity. The State Legislature is not competent to levy...

Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Same Day As Reply, Calls Hearing An “Eyewash”

Observing that passing an adjudication order on the very same day as filing of reply without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, the High Court of Uttarakhand set aside GST demand and penalty proceedings against Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd.The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, stated that the mere recording of a hearing on the date of filing a reply does not satisfy the requirement of a fair...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Pleas Against Arbitrator's Rejection Of Delayed NH -74 Compensation Claims

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by landowners challenging an arbitrator's rejection of their delayed claims for enhanced compensation under the National Highways Act, holding that such challenges cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available under the arbitration law.It noted that a remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such orders. A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal noted that...

Uttarakhand High Court Declines Bajaj Auto Writ Against GST Order; Pre-Deposit Requirement Not Ground To Bypass Appeal

The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited challenging a GST adjudication order, holding that the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the GST Act. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay noted that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, in such circumstances,...

Landowner Who Transfers Development Rights Is Jointly Liable To Homebuyers: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has recently reiterated that a landowner who hands over land and extensive development rights to a builder cannot avoid responsibility towards homebuyers and can be subjected to recovery proceedings even if the flats were sold by the developer. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Ashish Naithani said liability towards homebuyers does not rest on the builder alone. “The liability, as against the allottees, from whom money was realized by...

Uttarakhand High Court Says Taxpayer Seeking GST Installment Over Poor Finances Can Approach Commissioner

The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a GST-registered taxpayer seeking permission to pay tax dues in installments, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under the GST law. A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay was hearing a challenge to an order dated January 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Gopeshwar, Chamoli, by which a GST liability of over Rs 7.5 lakhs was fastened on the...

Income Tax Act | Multiple Presentations Of Proposal For Reopening U/S 148 After Rejection Not Permissible: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction. Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the...

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes GST Order After Authorities Ignored Adjournment Request While Assessee Was Abroad

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time. The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in...

Orders Under Omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 Post 8th Oct, 2024 Not Valid; No Savings Clause: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court stated that orders passed under omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 post 8th Oct, 2024 is not valid. The Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra stated that there was no scope for the department to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding. In this case, the assessee/petitioner who is...

No Provision Allows Coercive Action Before Pre-Intimation Notice: Uttarakhand HC Criticizes GST Dept For Negatively Blocking ITC

The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken. “The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok ...

Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable. Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a contract executed between the parties for the construction and renovation of the Jummagad Small Hydro Project. The period of completion was fixed at 15 months from the date of the Agreement. Due to the failure of the applicants to complete the...

On Recusal Of Arbitrator Appointed By Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act, Substitute Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 15(2): Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has held that on recusal of previously appointed Arbitrator appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act , a substitute Arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The present application under section 11 read with section 15 of the Arbitration Act has been filed, seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator after the recusal of the...