ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned tender cum auction notice, dated 25.01.2018, insofar as the same demands GST from the petitioner on the tender bid and other successful bidders.

2.It is the specific case of the petitioner that he participated in the tender in connection with Masi Perunthiruvizha in the 4th respondent Temple between

15.02.2018 and 06.03.2018.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that auction was held on

06.02.2018 and in connection with the aforesaid auction, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner was the successful bidder and quoted the highest amount of Rs.4,05,100/- for Stall No.C-5 for selling Delhi Appalam during Dindigul Arulmigu Kottai Mariamman Thirukovil Masi Perunthiruvizha. The petitioner also admits that he had paid the amount, though was not liable to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards GST liability. It is submitted that under the provisions and the rules enumerated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the respondents are under obligation to pay the necessary tax to be payable under the said Act. It is submitted that instead of paying the tax by themselves, the respondents were demanding it from the petitioner, which is contrary to the provisions of the respective Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4.Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that the supply effected by the fourth respondent to the petitioner by auctioning the space for putting up Stalls for being used on a temporary basis by the petitioner between 15.02.2018 and 06.03.2018 in connection with the aforesaid Temple festival, was not exempted. The fourth respondent was liable to pay tax under the respective Goods and Services Tax Act and since such supply was an indirect tax, the respondents were passing on the incidence of such tax demanded the amount from the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.4,05,100/- being the highest bidder. Apart from the above amount, the petitioner has also voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards GST in terms of the tender condition in the Tender Notification, dated 25.01.2018, of the respondents. As per the tender notification, apart from the bid amount, the highest bidder was also required to pay the applicable tax and since GST is applicable tax for supply of service, namely, temporary lease of space to the petitioner at the temple premises, the 4th respondent was indeed liable to pay the tax and that the amount collected from the petitioner has also been remitted to the Government.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 has aslo given a print out from the website of the Director General of Taxpayer Services Central Board of Exercise and Customs. Regarding GST on the Charitable and Religious Trust. Reference was made to Notification No.12 of 2017 and central tax (rate) dated 28.06.2017, which exempts only service provided by an entity registered under Section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of Charitable Activities from whole of GST. Entry No.1 of notification specifies that service by an entity registered under Secttion 12 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by way of charitable activity is exempt from whole of the GST. Entry No.1 GST notification reads as under:

(a) Entitites must be registered under Section 12 AA of the Income Tax,and (b) Such services or activities by the entity are by way of charitable activities.

7.The petitioner was required to bear the incidence of GST as per the Tender Notification, which was not paid by the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the ensuing tender, the petitioner also participated and was required to pay the tender amount and the GST.

8.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 affirmed that the petitioner has also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.23555 of 2018 for the ten