Back
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, PRAKASH D.NAIK
Builders Association of Navi Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue – Respondent
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order levying/collecting the Goods and Service Tax (GST) on the one-time lease premium charged by respondent no. 4 while letting plots of land on lease basis. By prayer clause (b), the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondents not to collect the Central Goods and Service Tax on the long term lease granted by respondent no. 4 to the members of petitioner no. 1, including respondent no. 2.
3. Before us is the first petitioner styled as Builders' Association of Navi Mumbai, which is a registered public charitable trust governed by the Bombay, now Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The second petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business as Builder and Developer. The first, second and the third respondents are the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the Commissioner of Goods and Serv
None identified. The provided case law entry does not indicate any treatment such as overruled, reversed, or criticized. It appears to be a standalone statement of law or fact without mention of subsequent judicial treatment or invalidation.
[Followed/Established]
The case law states: "Agricultural Market Committee established under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') is an 'industry' as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
This indicates that the case has been accepted or followed as establishing a legal position that the Agricultural Market Committee qualifies as an industry under the specified Act. There is no language suggesting it has been overruled or criticized, so it can be categorized as a precedent that has been followed or accepted.
None. All information provided is straightforward, and there are no indications of ambiguity or conflicting treatment.
**Source :** R. K. Palshikar VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, M. P. , Nagpur - Supreme Court Agricultural Produce Market Committee VS Ashok Harikuni - Supreme Court N. Nagendra Rao And Company VS State Of A. P. - Supreme Court Ramtanu Co Operative Housing Society VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assam, Tripura And Manipur VS Panbari Tea Company LTD. - Supreme Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
