9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is liable to pay 18% towards GST (9% of Central GST and 9% of State GST) in addition to the licence fee. But, as per Notification No.12/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 issued by the Central Government and G.O.Ms.No.588, Revenue (Commercial Taxes-II) Department, dated 12-12-2017 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh - On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 19.01.2019, this court found that the 3rd respondent issued the said proceedings only based on the licence deed and without reference to the Notification and the G.O. It is well settled that any clauses and the terms and conditions in the agreement or licence deed, which are contrary to the provisions of law and the notifications issued by the Governments, could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monthly licence fee of ₹ 2,76,666/-. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner s firm was maintaining Toilets in the Bus Station, Guntur, including all offices of the Bus Station, on a monthly licence fee of ₹ 2,76,666/- and the period of contract is for two years commencing from 19-02-2017 to 18-02-2019, which is extendable for a further period of two years subject to enhancement of licence fee by 10% over previous year s licence fee and the said contract period was extended for a period of one year. The 2nd respondent has been collecting GST from the petitioner on its licence fee from the date of commencement of its work. About three months back, when the petitioner wanted to pay licence fee in respect of its work, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inception of allotment of work, no amount of GST was collected from the petitioner. The aforesaid agreement was expired on 18-02-2019 as per the allotment order and agreement between the petitioner and the respondent Management. The petitioner s firm has agreed to pay enhanced licence fee (duly enhanced from ₹ 2,76,666/- to ₹ 3,04,333/- (by increasing 10% on the old licence fee) + GST 18% amount of ₹ 54,778/-, thus amounting to a total of ₹ 3,59,111/- in writing vide letter dated 19.02.2019. As such, the amount of ₹ 1,28,254/- (Licence Fee of ₹ 1,08,690/- + ₹ 19,564/- GST amount) was paid towards Licence fee during the period from 19.02.2019 to 28.02.2019 including GST vide M.R.No.18/118284, dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner vide letter dated 19.01.2019 to pay GST right from the allotment of the contract work, as the petitioner is under statutory obligation to pay GST as per law in force and as agreed by the petitioner at the time of allotment of work on nomination basis. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent Corporation issued impugned letter dated 19.01.2019 without application of mind and contrary to the notifications issued by the Central Government dated 28.06.2019. As per the notifications, the payment of GST was exempted under Heading 9994 at S.No.76 which refers to Service by way of public conveniences such as provision of facilities of bathroom, washroom, lavatories, urinal or toilets are ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed, the petitioner has to pay monthly licence fee along with GST as per clause 43 of the deed of licence. Unless clear guidelines are issued by the GST authorities, the notification dated 28.06.2017 under G.O.Ms.No.588, dated 12.12.2017 are not binding on the respondents. The payment of GST by the petitioner cannot be exempted. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this court found that the petitioner was entrusted with the work contract of maintenance of toilets in the Bus Station, Guntur by licence deed dated 19.02.2017 from 19.02.2017 to 18.02.2019 extendable to one year subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the 3rd respondent issued the said proceedings only based on the licence deed and without reference to the Notification and the G.O. It is well settled that any clauses and the terms and conditions in the agreement or licence deed, which are contrary to the provisions of law and the notifications issued by the Governments, could not bind the parties to the agreement. Therefore, the action of the respondents in insisting payment of GST as per clause 43 of the licence deed is found to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Notification and the G.O. It is also found that instead of exempting the petitioner from payment of GST, the 3rd respondent stated that the Central Government and the State Government has to issue guidelines in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
