Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (5) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not to collect Central GST and State GST at 9% each totalling 18% on monthly licence fee collected from the petitioner for the work of contract of maintenance of toilets in addition to the monthly licence fee as per Item No.47 of Deed of Licence, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the exemption granted by the Government of India, 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntation to the respondent, but in vain. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.813 of 2019 before this court and the same was disposed of on 31.01.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order 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 28.02.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order without application of mind and considering the notifications issued by the Central Government dated 28.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.588, dated 12.12.2017 submitted along with petitioner's representation. 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 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 resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted 12.12.2017 are not binding on the respondents and the exemption of payment of GST by the petitioners would not be granted. 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 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 Rs. 46,200/- payable to the Corporation by collecting user charges from the toilet users. As per the terms of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttled 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. 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 obli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates