Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Ajay Digpaul, JJ
T.K.A. Padmanabhan – Appellant
Versus
UOI – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8217/2006 | CM APPL. 6071/2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K.A. Padmanabhan
For the Respondents: R. Ramachandran, Prateek Dhir
A writ petition challenging tax levy may be disposed of by directing the relevant statutory authority to treat the petition as a formal representation and issue a reasoned order, exhaustion of administrative remedies being a preferred initial course.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the collection of service tax by the Delhi Development Authority at a sports complex, arguing the facility is not an independent entity or registered club under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The court noted the absence of prior representation to the authorities. The court addressed whether a service tax could be legally levied on members by a sports complex managed by a statutory authority. The court determined that rather than adjudicating the merits directly, the dispute should first be processed administratively by the competent authority. The court directed the petition to be treated as a formal representation, ordering the relevant authority to provide a reasoned decision within four months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of the legal challenge regarding service tax levy by a statutory sports facility. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court directive for administrative resolution of tax disputes before judicial intervention. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
O R D E R
1. The petitioner, who appears in person, was admitted as a member of the Dwarka Sports Complex, which is managed and run by the respondent Delhi Development Authority, who was created pursuant to the statutory mandate under Section 3 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
2. According to the party in person, the sports complex is neither an independent entity nor an association or a club which can be said to be entitled to collect service tax from the members on whom membership is conferred.
3. According to him, if clause 10, particularly clauses 10.1 to 10.5 of the notification dated 27th July 2005 issued by respondent-Government of India are appreciated, it has to be referred that the existence of the sports complex is not independent of the Delhi Development Authority, which is constituted under Section 3 referred (Supra). As the sports complex itself is not registered as an association or a club, none of the respondents, in law, are entitled to levy the service tax and collect the same from the petitioner.
4. As such the petitioner is claiming relief of the writ of mandamus or that of prohibition.
5. The fact remains that the petitioner has not preferred any representation to that effect to any of the authorities.
6. In the wake of the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the following directions:
a. We direct that the petition of the petitioner to be treated as a representation by all the respondents, and if so desired, the respondents may summon the petitioner for hearing on the issue which he intends to canvass in law, i.e. that the respondents are not entitled to levy service tax or collect the same from the petitioner.
b. We expect the respondents to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner in any case within a period of four months from the date of production of this order.
7. We deem it appropriate to clarify that since the charges are levied by the Delhi Development Authority, the Delhi Development Authority must pass an order in the matter.
8. We further deem it appropriate to direct that the Delhi Development Authority, if so convinced of the stand taken by the petitioner, is required to take up the issue with the competent authorities of the respondent nos.1 & 2.
9. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.
