Telangana High Court Stays Tax Notice to Uber

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday stayed further proceedings in a show-cause notice issued for recovery of GST refunds against Uber India Systems Private Limited. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin is hearing a writ petition filed by Uber India Systems Private Limited challenging the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax under the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the notice was illegal, arbitrary and void since it was addressed to M/s Uber India Research and Development Private Limited, an amalgamating company which ceased to exist after its merger with the petitioner on April 1, 2022, pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai. It was further argued that both the appellate proceedings and the subsequent notice are unsustainable in law, having been issued against a non-existent entity. Counsel for the CGST authorities argued that the CGST Act specifically provides for consequences arising out of merger and amalgamation of companies. After hearing the submissions, the panel directed that proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice shall remain stayed.

HC junks failed student’s writ for evaluation

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a medical student challenging the action of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) in not evaluating his Human Anatomy paper of the first year MBBS examination held in February 2024. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Mohammed Nazeeruddin Muzammil, contending that the failure of the university to evaluate his paper amounted to arbitrariness and a violation of his fundamental rights under the constitution. He sought a direction to the university to evaluate the answer script and declare his result. The university submitted that the petitioner already attempted the same examination four times but failed each time, and under the existing regulations, a student cannot be permitted a fifth attempt. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was earlier granted liberty to approach the grievance committee but chose to file the present petition after a lapse of nearly 18 months. After considering the submissions, the judge held that the claim was unsustainable in law and dismissed the writ plea.

HC for humanistic approach in motor accident cases

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court echoed the purport and spirit of the Motor Vehicle Act and the need for a humanistic approach in the grant of compensation to victims of road accidents. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a statutory appeal filed by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. The appeal was filed against an award in favour of family members of victim of a fatal accident. During the proceedings, it was observed that the appellant insurance company had deposited an amount of Rs 19,55,205 pursuant to an order in 2017. The 21-year-old engineering student died in a road accident on February 4, 2010, and succumbed to his injuries on December 3, 2010. The Tribunal, in its earlier order, had observed that the deceased, being a young engineering student with a promising future, had died at an early age due to the accident. It awarded compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, taking into account both present and future loss to the family. Speaking for the bench, Justice G. Praveen Kumar said even though the Act is a beneficial legislation, the untimely death of a brilliant student cannot be measured in monetary terms. The panel dismissing the appeal observed that overall compensation is just and no reduction was required.

Medical student moves HC for stipend

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition against Gandhi Medical College for allegedly and arbitrarily withholding a medical student’s stipend for over five months. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Dr K. Kiran Kumar, who contended that the action of the respondents in withholding the stipend was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner contended that despite rendering services, the respondents failed to release the pending stipend amounting to around Rs 22 lakh, causing severe financial hardship. The petitioner further sought directions to release the due amount with 18 per cent interest and ensure timely payment of future stipends.