Noida Power Company Ltd. Vs. Union Of India

In a legal hearing, Sri Dhru Agarwal, a distinguished senior counsel, was accompanied by Sri Manish Panda, a proficient counsel, representing the petitioner. Together, they presented the petitioner’s case with thoroughness and expertise. Their representation likely involved extensive legal research, meticulous preparation, and compelling argumentation aimed at advocating for the petitioner’s interests before the court. Agarwal’s seniority and experience, coupled with Panda’s assistance, likely contributed to a comprehensive and persuasive presentation of the petitioner’s arguments and evidence. Throughout the proceedings, they likely navigated legal complexities, addressed pertinent issues, and engaged with the court in a manner befitting their professional standing and dedication to their client’s cause.

Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, representing the GST Council, and Sri Ashok Singh, representing the Union of India, were the learned counsels involved in the legal proceedings. They presented their arguments before the court regarding the matter at hand. Raghuvanshi likely advocated on behalf of the GST Council, providing insights into their stance on the issue, while Singh represented the Union of India, offering perspectives aligned with the government’s position. Their arguments and presentations likely contributed to the court’s understanding of the case and influenced the judicial decision-making process.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the imposition of any tax through a circular without proper amendment to the notification is inherently flawed. This contention likely stems from a legal challenge regarding taxation procedures. The petitioner’s counsel contends that taxation changes must be formally enacted through the appropriate legal channels, such as amending notifications, rather than being imposed solely through circulars. This argument suggests a concern over the legality and procedural correctness of the tax imposition method employed. The counsel may further argue that such actions could lead to ambiguity, unfairness, or even potential legal challenges, emphasizing the importance of adherence to established legal processes in matters of taxation. Overall, the petitioner’s counsel likely seeks to highlight the need for strict adherence to legal procedures and transparency in tax implementation to ensure fairness and prevent potential legal ambiguities or challenges.

The petitioner’s counsel vehemently contends that any imposition of tax through a circular, lacking proper amendment in the notification, stands devoid of jurisdiction and flagrantly violates the statutory provisions encapsulated within Section 11(1) in conjunction with Section 3 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. Emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal protocols, the counsel stresses that the absence of clarification within the notification exacerbates the situation, leaving the exemption notification unchanged and devoid of necessary elucidation. Through this argument, they aim to underscore the fundamental procedural irregularities and legal deficiencies inherent in the imposition of taxes via circulars, advocating for a stringent adherence to legislative protocols and due process.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasizes that the notification granting exemption remains unchanged. This aspect of the argument likely underscores the discrepancy between the existing notification, which exempts certain entities or transactions from taxation, and the imposition of taxes through a circular without corresponding amendments to the notification. This assertion suggests a lack of alignment between the notification and the tax imposition method employed through the circular. The counsel may argue that the unchanged nature of the notification underscores the necessity for any alterations to be formally made through proper channels, rather than through alternative means such as circulars. This contention strengthens the petitioner’s position by highlighting inconsistencies or irregularities in the taxation process, potentially supporting their argument against the validity or legality of the imposed taxes. Overall, this aspect of the argument serves to highlight the importance of adherence to established legal procedures and the need for clarity and consistency in taxation matters to ensure fairness and compliance with the law.

Given the aforementioned arguments and considerations, the petitioner’s counsel asserts that no coercive measures should be taken. This statement implies that, in light of the legal arguments presented and the apparent irregularities in the imposition of taxes, the counsel advocates against any punitive actions or enforcement measures. They likely contend that until the legal matter is resolved or clarified, it would be unjust to enforce coercive measures against the petitioner or any affected parties. This position underscores the importance of fair legal proceedings and the presumption of innocence until a conclusive judgment is reached.

The court has decided not to take any action against the petitioner until the 17th of September 2018. This decision implies a postponement of any potential consequences or rulings regarding the petitioner’s case until that specified date. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration and proceedings on the 17th of September 2018. This adjournment allows both parties involved in the case, as well as the court, additional time to prepare, gather evidence, and present arguments before any final decisions are made. It also indicates the court’s commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the issues at hand before reaching a judgment. The petitioner and their legal representation may utilize this time to strengthen their case, while the opposing party may similarly prepare their arguments. Overall, the decision to defer any action until the specified date reflects the court’s adherence to due process and its commitment to a comprehensive and just resolution of the matter.

Download PDF:
Noida Power Company Ltd.

For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court 

Read Another Case Law :
GST Case Law