9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. prevail over the terms and conditions of the licence deed. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 28.12.2019, 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 the clauses and the terms 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 47 of the licence deed is found to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Notification and the G.O. The 3rd respondent being the class-I officer of the respondent Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Ministry of Finance through its Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.588, dated 12.12.2017 issued by Revenue (Commercial Taxes-II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered society established in the year 2004, one among the other objects of the society is to take up contract works pertaining to sanitation, cleaning and sweeping of bus station in APSRTC and improvement endorsements in all public, Government and private Departments. The petitioner was awarded licence of work contract of maintenance of toilets block at the 4th respondent Depot i.e. Badvel Bus station for a period of two years commencing from 01-11-2018 to 31-10-2020, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits within three (3) weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.02.2019 duly enclosing a notification and a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.46377 of 2018 requesting the respondents not to insist him for payment of GST for the services rendered by him. However, the 3rd respondent passed the order dated 28.02.2019 without referring to the Central Government Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.588 Revenue (Commercial Taxes-II) Department, dated 12-12-2017, rejecting the case of the petitioner for exemption of payment of GST solely on the ground that as per clause 47 of the licence f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 exempted and the same exemption is granted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.588 Revenue (Commercial Taxes-II) Department, dated 12.12.2017. As per the notification and G.O., the petitioner is exempted from the payment of GST on the licence fee payable to the 3rd respondent for maintenance of toilets in the bus station. He further contends that the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner s representation and asking the petitioner to pay GST as per the tender conditions under clause 47 of the deed of licence is illegal and arbitrary as the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the record, this court found that the petitioner was entrusted with the work contract of maintenance of toilets blocks at Badwel bus station by licence deed dated 23.10.2018 from 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2020 extendable to one year subject to satisfactory performance of the contract by the petitioner on a monthly licencee fee of ₹ 46,200/- payable to the Corporation by collecting user charges from the toilet users. As per the terms of the licence deed under clause 47, the petitioner is liable to pay GST in addition to the licence fee of ₹ 46,200/- along with 18% towards GST (9% of Central GST and 9% of State GST). But, as per Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-06-2017 issued by the Central Government an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se 47 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, the 3rd respondent stated that the Central Government and the State Government has to issue guidelines in respect of the same. Such arbitrary action of the 3rd respondent needs to be deprecated. The 3rd respondent being the class-I officer of the respondent Corporation is under obligation to consider the purport of the notifications and the orders issued by the competent authority granting exemptions from payment of GST for the services rendered by the petitioner, as he is supported by well competent legal department and legal advisors, instead of driving the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
