O R D E R

Common issue arises for consideration in W.P.No.11038 of 2022, W.P.Nos.24261 & 27092 of 2022, W.P.Nos.5967 of 2023 and in W.P.No.15333 of 2020.

2. The dispute in this writ petition is under the Finance Act, 1994.

The disputes in other writ petitions are under the respective GST Enactments of 2017 as in force with effect from 01.07.2017 for similar supply of services. W.P.Nos.11038, 27092 of 2022 and W.P.No.5967 of 2023 have been filed by the provider and recipient of service. This writ petition has been filed by the service provider itself.

3. Other writ petitions were de-tagged and heard separately and are being disposed separately.

4. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the Order in Original No.27 of 2019 (ST) dated 29.10.2019 passed by the first respondent and consequential recovery order dated 06.10.2020 bearing reference O.C.No.170 of 2020 of the second respondent.

5. By the impugned Order in Original No.27 of 2019 (ST) dated

29.10.2019, the first respondent has confirmed a sum of Rs.1,19,85,616/- towards service tax due from the petitioner. Apart from service tax, interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act have also been imposed on the petitioner vide impugned Order in Original No.27 of 2019 (ST) dated 29.10.2019.

6. Operative portion of the impugned Order in Original No.27 of

2019 (ST) dated 29.10.2019 passed by the first respondent reads as under:-

ORDER

I. I confirm the demand of Service tax of Rs.1,19,85,616/- (inclusive of Cesses) (Rupees One crore nineteen lakhs eighty five thousand, six hundred and sixteen only) on the consideration received towards provision of Service of Affiliation/Recognition and Service of Renting of Immovable Property during the period from October 2013 to June 2017, under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act. 1994.

II. I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate on the above amount (i) under Section 75 of the Finance Act. 1994.

III. I impose a penalty of 10.000/- under sub- section (2) of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, for non-registration and non-filing of returns from October 2013 to June 2017: and IV.I impose a penalty of Rs.1,02,88,307/- {1697309+8590998} (Rupees One Crore two lakh eighty eight thousand, three hundred and seven only) under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. [Penalty of Rs.16,97,309/- being 50% of tax liability for the period from Oct'13 to May'15 as per first proviso to Section 78(1) ibid and equivalent penalty of Rs.85,90,998/-for the period from June'15 to June'17 under Section

78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994].

The option of paying reduced penalty of Rs.29,96,404/- {Rupees Twenty nine lakhs ninety six thousand and four hundred and four only] which is 25% of tax determined is available subject to payment of Service tax determined, interest along with the above said reduced penalty too within thirty days of receipt of this order in terms of clause (ii) to second proviso and third proviso to Section 78(1) of Finance Act, 1994.”

7. The second Impugned Order dated 06.10.2020 bearing nd reference O.C.No.170/2020 of the 2 respondent merely calls upon the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount confirmed by the first respondent vide impugned Order in Original No.27 of 2019 (ST) dated 29.10.201, failing which it is stated that action under Section 87(b)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994will be initiated.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the following two cases:-

i)Madurai Kamaraj University vs. Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Madurai, 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 385 (Mad.)

ii)The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, Chennai vs. The Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence, Chennai, 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 475 (Mad.)

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the attention to the decision of the Madura