- 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
Uber moves Delhi High Court The e-commerce operator challenges GST on auto-rickshaw services The e-commerce operator, Uber has moved the Delhi High Court challenging Goods and Services Tax (GST) on auto-rickshaws services booked through the e-commerce platform. In this context, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla issued a notice to the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Uber moves Delhi High Court
The e-commerce operator challenges GST on auto-rickshaw services
The e-commerce operator, Uber has moved the Delhi High Court challenging Goods and Services Tax (GST) on auto-rickshaws services booked through the e-commerce platform.
In this context, the division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla issued a notice to the government.
The counsel for the petitioner informed the court about the notification amendments in order to levy GST on the supply of transportation of passenger service. This pertained to the 'electronic commerce operator' provided by an auto-rickshaw.
He stated that the impugned notifications would come into effect from 1 January 2022. If an auto-rickshaw driver registered himself with the e-commerce operator (as the petitioner) and provided transportation of passenger services to the passengers identified through such a platform, GST at 5 percent or 12 percent would be applicable on the fare collected. But a ride through offline modes like street hailing of the auto-rickshaw would still be exempt from GST.
The counsel contended that the impugned notifications were violative of the Constitution of India, as they failed to satisfy the test of reasonable classification. He stated that no differentiation in tax treatment could be created between the passenger transport services facilitated through e-commerce platforms and offline.