TEAM CODE – LIME030

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREEM COURT OF WESTROS IN KINGSLAND

Write Petition________ of 2016

In the Matters of :-

Instaport Services Pvt. Ltd --- Petitioner

v/s

Commercial Tax Department --- Respondent

&

Starks Industries Pvt. Ltd. --- Petitioner

v/s

Lyanna Targarian --- Respondent

&

State of Bravos --- Petitioner

v/s

State Of Winterfell --- Respondent

To,

The Hon’ble Chief justice of Westros and His Lordship’s companion Justice of the Supreem
Court of Westros.

Memorandum on behalf of the above mentioned Petitioners.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………….

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………

 STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION.............................................................

 STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………..

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………….....

 SUMMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………

 PRAYER OF RELIEF……………………………………………………

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 LIST OFABBRIVIATIONS

STARKS INDUSTRIES LIMITED STARK Ltd.

INSTAPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED INSTAPORT
Ltd.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION DCGA
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT CTD
REGISTERED REGD.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SCN
SUPREME COURT SC
AND &
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NGT
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GST

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERRED:-

i. V.N.SHUKLA, Constitution of India by Mahendra Pal Singh (12th Edition);

Eastern Book Company.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 ii. P. LEELAAKRISHNAN, Environmental Law in India (3rd Edition); Lexis
Nexis.

iii. COMENTARY ON NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL by RITWICK

DUTTA, SANJEET PUROHIT.

B. LEGISLATIONS:-

i. Constitution of India 1950.

ii. Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act 1979.

iii. Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

iv. National Green Tribunal Act 2010.

C. WEBSITES:-

i. www.indiankanoon.com

ii. www.manupatra.com

iii. www.lexisnexis.com

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Council humbly invokes the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court under

Art 226 – Constitution of Westros

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

Art – 131 of Income Tax Act

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

Art – 14, Constitution Of India

As the Hon’ble Court as the Jurisdiction on this case as the matter is related to the order
passed by Hon’ble High court at Winterfell and the learned NGT Kingsland, Westros.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Westros is a country which has states in which Winterfell is an under developed state,
which imports goods from states like Bravos & Casterly Rocks.

 Starks Ltd. Is a startup company regd. in the city if Merth, Bravos & has a sister company
Instaport Ltd. The company is an online platform & interface b/w purchaser & seller with
the help of delivery agent Instaport Ltd.

 Instaport Ltd. acts as a delivery platform, preliminary uses drones regd. with the DCGA
for carrying out deliveries.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 To raise their next series of funding, they advertised showing huge net profits. Taking
note of that the CTD of Winterfell searched the registered office & seized all type of
documents including other confidential documents as well.

 On the same day one drone was on a routine delivery to Winterfell. As soon as the drone
landed on the local area of the Winterfell was seized by the CTD of Winterfell along with
goods & memory card. It was found that drone was unregistered according to CTD &
many other information were also been captured.

 On the basis of document seized SCN under WINTERFELL TAX ON ENTRY OF

GOODS ACT 1979, the company challenged the SCN on the grounds of the:-
(i) SCN issued by CTD was illegal.
(ii) Drone is not a motor vehicle of the purpose of this act.

 The petition was dismissed by the HC of Winterfell.

 Meanwhile, another drone was carrying a chemical for delivery to the state of Casterly
Rocks. Due to packaging issue made by the seller Mr. Trump, chemical fell in the
WILDLING RESERVE FOREST at Casterly Rocks which caused huge to flora & fauna.

 Taking note of that one Ms. Lyanna Targarian initiated proceedings before NGT.

 NGT imposed penalty of rupees 100 crores on Starks Ltd. Which was challenged by the
company in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
 During the pendency state of Bravos, on presented report filled writ petition in the
Hon’ble SC raising the following issues:-

(i) It violates Article 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the constitution of Westros;

(ii) Against the principle of Federalism;
(iii) Against the basic structure of the constitution of Westros; and
(iv) Suffers from excessive delegation.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THE APPELIANT RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF WESTROS, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

ISSUE - 1

i. On what basis the CTD of Winterfell seizes the drone ‘DRAGON 3’ of stark ltd. And
instaport ltd. considering it a motor vehichle?

ISSUE – 2

ii. The penalty of 100cr. which NGT has imposed on stark ltd. is legally right or not?

ISSUE – 3

iii. Is the proposed GST is constitutional or unconstitutional?

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

i. ON WHAT BASIS THE CTD OF WINTERFELL SEIZES THE DRONE ‘DRAGON 3’

OF STARK LTD. AND INSTAPORT LTD. CONSIDERING IT A MOTOR VEHICLE?

 Under motor vehicle act, 1988 – a motor vehicle is something which have an
engine and axel body which runs on wheels on road.
 Motor vehicle carry some weight on its axle which means its weight is transmitted
by the wheels on axle to the surface on which vehicle rests.
 Drone is a type of aircraft which runs automatically- without human.

ii. THE PANALTY OF 100CR. WHICH NGT HAS IMPOSED ON STARK LTD. IS
LEGAL OR NOT?

 Firstly Ms. Lyanna Targarian have the right to go to the court.

 The NGT’s imposed penalty is illegal because the mistake is on the part of seller, Mr.
Trump.
 Due to the packaging problem the chemical spilled.
 The penalty should not be imposed on Stark Ltd.

iii. IS THE PROPOSED GST IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

 Article 131, original jurisdiction explains it.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 The GST act resolves all the disputed between state and the central.
 Article 14 is being violated because it says every individual or state shall be treated
equally but here Bravos is not.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

i. ON WHAT BASIS THE CTD OF WINERFELL SEIZES THE DRONE ‘DRAGON 3’

OF STARK LTD. AND INSTAPORT LTD. CONSIDERING IT A MOTOR VEHICLE?

 The CTD of Winterfell seized the drone of stark ltd. and Instaport Ltd. considering it a
motor vehicle but it is not legally right because a drone is not a motor vehicle and it is
proved in motor vehicle, which clearly says that any mechanically propelled vehicle
adapted for use upon the roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted from an
external or internal source. A motor vehicle contains an engine, wheels, body and an axle
which carries the total weight on it and runs on surface, roads. And driven by a human
driver.
And the drone is an unmanned aircraft that can fly autonomously- that is, without a
human in control. It is type of an aircraft which is registered under DGCA. Hence, it is
proved that the drone is not come under motor vehicle is act and it is a type of aircraft so
the seizer is illegal.

ii. THE PANALTY OF 100CR. WHICH NGT HAS IMPOSED ON STARK LTD. IS
LEGAL OR NOT?

 The penalty of 100cr. which NGT has imposed on stark ltd. is illegal because the mistake
is on the part of the seller, Mr. Trump. It is Mr. Trumps mistake that the packaging of the
chemical ‘X’ was not properly done, due to which the chemical ‘X’ spilled and fell into

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 the wildling Reserve Forest at Casterly Rocks. So, the penalty should not be imposed on
stark ltd. and the company is not liable. Mr. Trump, the seller of chemical ‘X’ should be
held liable and charged of the penalty or the penalty should be charged equally among
Stark Ltd. and Mr. Trump, the seller of the chemical ‘X’.
Secondly, Ms. Lyanna Targarian, who took this to NGT, located in Kingsland, capital of
Westros, didn’t have the locous standi because she is not the griefed person as she not a
part of the state of Casterly Rocks, she belongs to the state of winterfell and she is also
not the griefed person so, she don’t have the locous standi. Hence it is proved that the
penalty of 100cr. On Stark Ltd. is illegal.

iii. IS THE PROPOSED GST IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

 The proposed GST is unconstitutional because the proposed bill is giving all the power to
GST of the Supreme Court and high court in the matter of levy of taxes on goods and
services and disputes among the states. Article 131, original jurisdiction of the supreme
court subject to the provision of the constitution, the supreme court shall, to the exclusion
of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute.
a) Between the government of Westros and one or more states; or
b) Between the government of Westros and any other state or state on one
side and one or more other state on the other; or
c) Between two or more state, if and in so far as the dispute involves any
question ( whether of law or fact ) on which the existence or extent of a
legal right depends : provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to
a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, and
or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed
before the commencement of this constitution, continues in operation

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction
shall not extend to such a dispute.

GST council is stabilized under GST act to resolve all the dispute between state and
centre. And it is also violating the Article 14 because it says that equal should be treated
equally and unequal should be treated unequally and here it is violating it. GST treats
every state in equal format irrespective of their inequality among the states in Westros
because some state like Bravos is highly developed and others are not developed or under
development.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

 PRAYER OF RELIEF

Therefore in the light of the facts stated, issue raised and argument advanced, it is the most
respectfully submitted and implored before the Hon’ble supreme court that it may be
pleased to quash the order passed by the Hon’ble court and the Learned NGT and be
pleased to allow the prayer made before the High Court, pass any other order, which the
Hon’ble court may so Dim fit in the interest of equity, justice & good concise; all of which
is submitted council on behalf of the Instaport Pvt. Ltd, Stark industries Pvt. Ltd, State of
Bravos.

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER

MEMORANDIUM FOR PETITIONER