- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court upholds notifications levying GST on autos booked through Ola and Uber
Delhi High Court upholds notifications levying GST on autos booked through Ola and Uber
Uber said it created an unreasonable distinction between auto-rickshaws booked through app-based platforms and offline mode
The Delhi High Court has upheld government notifications imposing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on auto-rickshaws booked through app-based aggregators including Ola and Uber.
Reasoning that the orders did not violate the fundamental rights, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, "The classification as a class of service providers separate and distinct is recognized in the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The classification has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved."
Accordingly, if an auto-driver registers with an app-based aggregator and offers passenger transportation services to customers using such platforms, GST at 5 percent or 12 percent would be applicable on the fare received.
Uber had argued that the notifications violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the government did not intend to levy any such tax on auto rides using offline methods like street hailing.
It added there could not be any distinction in tax treatment between passenger transport services provided by auto drivers facilitated through mobile platforms or offline. That was because the government's directives did not pass the test of reasonable classification.