Uber India  systems (p.) ltd. Vs union of india

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, commonly known as a Writ of Mandamus, seeks judicial intervention to compel the respondent, in this case, Respondent No. 2a, to consider and decide upon representations submitted by the petitioner on specific dates – August 31, 2020, December 3, 2020, December 11, 2020, and January 15, 2021. The petitioner implores the High Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing Respondent No. 2a to expeditiously handle and resolve the representations within a specified time frame.

In essence, the petitioner asserts that the representations made are subject to legal entitlements or obligations and that the delay or lack of response from Respondent No. 2a infringes upon the petitioner’s rights. By invoking Article 226, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, the petitioner seeks the court’s intervention to ensure timely and fair consideration of their representations.

Upon perusing the petition and the supporting affidavit, the court has taken cognizance of the matter and is now considering whether to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. This stage of proceedings typically involves the court reviewing the grounds presented in the petition, examining the supporting documents, and assessing whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for the issuance of the requested writ or order.

The court’s decision will likely hinge on factors such as the merits of the petitioner’s case, the nature of the representations made, any legal obligations or precedents relevant to the situation, and the interests of justice. If the court finds in favor of the petitioner, it may issue the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order directing Respondent No. 2a to promptly address the representations and provide a resolution within the stipulated time frame.

Overall, the writ petition filed under Article 226 serves as a legal mechanism for individuals to seek judicial redressal when their rights or legal entitlements are allegedly infringed upon by gov.

In a recent court proceeding, Mr. Arvind Daar, a Senior Counsel, along with Mrs. Sudipta Battacharya and Mr. Adithiya Reddy, representing the petitioner, presented their arguments. On the other side, Mr. M. Sathyan, Assistant Central Government Standing Counsel, appeared for the first respondent, and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel, represented the second respondent.

The court’s order came after Mr. Sathyan and Mr. Srinivas sought some time to obtain instructions and file counters.

The crux of the petitioner’s plea revolved around seeking a mandamus to direct the second respondent, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, to decide on representations dated August 31, 2020, December 3, 2020, December 11, 2020, and January 15, 2021. These representations aimed to establish uniformity in the levy of Central GST and State GST on the use of motorcycles as contract carriages, in accordance with Sections 2(22), (25), and (26) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that while their client adheres to the levy of GST under Notification 17 of 2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, other operators in similar or identical positions do not.

The court directed the second respondent to hear the petitioner and other operators similarly situated regarding the potential impact of any decision made in this matter. Furthermore, the court instructed the second respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s representations within six weeks from the date of the order, regardless of the ongoing writ petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: