Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Mcpi Private Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 2020

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

                                                       1

12.3.2020
    ap
    28
                             W. P. 11303 (W) of 2019
                                    (Assigned)

                            MCPI Private Ltd. & Anr.
                                        Vs.
                             Union of India & Ors.

                         Mr. Joybrata Misra
                                      ... For petitioners.

                        Mr. Vipul Kundalia
                        Mr. Sjjit Mitra
                            Mr. K.K. Maity
                            Mr. B. P. Banerjee
                                        ... For Union of India.

                             Mr. Amitabrata Roy
                             Mr. B.P. Banerjee
                                      ... For respondent nos. 2 & 3.

Mr. Misra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and reiterates submissions made and recorded in order dated 20th February, 2020. The submission was that challenge in this writ petition is covered by judgment dated 23rd January, 2020 made by a Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat, in, inter alia, R/Special Civil Application 726 of 2018 [(Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & 1 other(s)] wherein view taken was that no tax is leviable under Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007, on ocean freight, for services provided by a person, located in a non-taxable territory, by way of transportation of goods on a vessel from a place outside India upto Customs station of clearance in India. Notification impugned in this writ petition has been declared unconstitutional by the judgment. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and does not dispute that the challenge appears to be covered. Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate appears on behalf Union of India. 2 A point of law stands decided by a Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat. The challenge appears to be covered thereby. This writ petition is accordingly allowed as so covered.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)