IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M. Srinivasan & Others – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi & Others – Respondent
WP Nos. 446, 6124, 29797 & 30685 of 2018 & WMP Nos. 504, 7548, 40088, 34770, 35794, 35792 of 2018
Decided On : 17-04-2021
GST Act - Section 2 and 7 - CGST Act - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Parking of vehicle - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Payment of 18% GST on Licence Fee - Seeking direction to 3rd respondent to allow petitioner to collect GST at 18% from customers in addition to parking charges - Writ petitioners are Contractors, who were granted license to run parking areas for vehicles in Railway premises by the Southern Railway - All writ petitioners participated in the tender process and were successful in the tender and entered into an agreement with the Southern Railway, agreeing certain terms and conditions stipulated.
Finding of the court: It is clear that Southern Railways is liable to pay service tax for license fee collected from respective contractors and respective contractors are liable to pay service tax for collections made from end users/customers in respect of parking slot services. Such contractors are bound to register their name under CGST Act, by following procedures contemplated therein - Provisions of CGST Act, non-exempted cases, cannot seek any exoneration. Whether such services rendered by writ petitioners are exempted or not, is to be verified by Competent Authorities of GST Department and accordingly suitable orders may be passed - Provisions of CGST Act, which is unambiguous and explicitly provided under the Act, there is no scope for entertaining the grounds as raised in present writ petitions.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent with reference to instructions vide his letter No.M/C.300/Vehicle Parking/2017 dated 29.06.2017 and letter No.M/C.300/Policy dated 24.07.2017, respectively and quash the same as prima facie illegal, improper and not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to collect GST on the usage of the vehicle parking lot from the recipient of the said service.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent herein dated 29.06.2017 in No.M/C.300/Vehicle Parking/2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to collect GST at 18% from the customers in addition to the parking charges.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent with reference to his Letter of Information No.M/C.300/Cycles/CGL-Site No.I dated 22.03.2018 with reference to the requirement of payment of 18% GST on then Licence Fee and quash the same as prima facie illegal, improper and not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to collect GST on the usage of the vehicle parking lot from the recipient of the said service.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th respondent with reference to his Letters of Acceptance No.M/C.300/Cycles/KBT, dated 12.04.2017 with reference to the requirement of payment of 18% GST on the Licence Fee and quash the same as prima facie illegal, improper and not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to collect GST on the usage of the vehicle parking lot by collecting the same from the recipient of the said service.)
These writ petitions were filed questioning the demand made by the Southern Railway to pay 18% of GST in respect of the license fee granted to the Private Contractors to run parking of vehicles.
2. At the first instance, this Court would like to look into the provisions of law with reference to collection of 18% GST as far as the parking areas, more specifically, in these batch of cases by the Southern Railway through their Private Contractors.
3. Section 2 of the CGST Act enumerates definitions. Section 2 (102) defines:-
“services” means “anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency or denomination, to another form, currency or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged;
[Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression “services” includes facilitating or arranging transactions in securities;]”
4. Let us now consider Chapter III levy and collection of tax. Section 7 denotes the scope of supply, which reads as under:-
“7. Scope of supply.––
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression 'supply' includes––
(a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;
(b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business; [and]
(c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration; and
(d) the activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.