2020 (6) TMI 457 - HC - GST

Validity of action of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), in trying to demolish the billboards/hoardings of the petitioners - demand of fee for two periods, namely, pre GST and post GST - HELD THAT - Without even answering the query raised as to whether the GMC would have the authority to levy such fee for the post GST period, it is an admitted fact that certain disputes has arisen for the period prior to promulgation of the GST. While the statutory authority of GMC contends that huge sum is pending from the petitioners as fee for the billboards/hoardings erected in the city of Guwahati, it is the case of the petitioners that no amount is payable and rather, excess amount is lying with the GMC. Such questions are no doubt questions of fact and that too, disputed by the parties. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to adjudicate any matters constituting disputed questions of fact inasmuch as this Court lacks the mechanism for adducing evidence which would be necessary to prove the respective cases of the parties. Admittedly, the materials on record suggest that there is a vast difference of opinion regarding the amount due, if any. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to make any comments on the demands made and the challenge made to such demands and it will be left for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum to adjudicate such questions of fact which are disputed in nature. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to action of Guwahati Municipal Corporation in trying to demolish billboards/hoardings and demand for certain amounts post Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners, registered companies dealing with advertisement in billboards/hoardings, challenged the action of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) in trying to demolish their billboards and demanding certain amounts, contending that post GST Act, GMC lost power to levy fees. They argued that fees levied were excessive and demanded without proper assessment. On the other hand, GMC argued that pre-GST, they had the authority to levy fees for billboards/hoardings and the demands were legitimate public money owed by the petitioners. The dispute revolved around the amount due for pre-GST and post-GST periods.

The High Court, considering the disputed factual issues regarding the amount due, declined to adjudicate on the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the vast difference of opinion between the parties regarding the outstanding fees, which constituted disputed questions of fact beyond its jurisdiction to resolve. As a result, the Court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the merits, allowing the petitioners to seek redressal in the appropriate forum of law. The Court clarified that its decision should not prejudice either party, as no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.

Therefore, the High Court's judgment dismissed the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case due to the disputed factual issues surrounding the outstanding fees owed by the petitioners to GMC. The Court emphasized that such disputed questions of fact should be addressed in the appropriate forum, as it lacked the mechanism to resolve factual disputes. The interim order previously issued was deemed merged with the final order, maintaining a neutral stance without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.