Dismissed

Erode District Cooperative v. Union of India

Madras HC17 Jul 2019WP/16131/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging service tax on immovable property rentals. The court rejected a plea to stay proceedings pending a Supreme Court nine-judge bench decision, citing interim orders allowing future tax claims. Liberty was granted to both parties to pursue their respective claims pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed with liberty granted to both parties to work out remedies as per interim Supreme Court orders and subject to the pending nine-judge bench decision.

Erode District Cooperative Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

W.P.No.16131 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009

¶6

Erode District Co-operative Printing Works Ltd.,
represented by its Special Officer,
Periyar Nagar,
Erode. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. Executive Officer,
and Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Erode Division,
Erode. ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in his Letter No.R12/2705/87 dated 21.01.2009, issued following the second respondent's Memo No.BAS-1(1)10717/08 dated 21.01.2009 and quash the said proceedings.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Liagat Ali For R1 :Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Standing Counsel For R2 and R3 :Mr.R.Bharathkumar, Standing Counsel

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The demand of service tax on renting an immovable property is under challenge in the present writ petition. The vires of Section 65(105)(ZZZZ) of the Finance Act, is pending the decision of the Hon'ble Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, there was an interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifying that there is no stay of imposition of service tax under Section 65(105)(ZZZZ) of the Finance Act, insofar as the future liability towards service tax with effect from 1st January 2012 is concerned. Effectively, the respondents would be justified in claiming service tax for the future liability from 01.01.2012 onwards, in view of the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.01.2012.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. UTV News Ltd., reported in 2018(13)G.S.T.L.3(S.C.), while dealing with the very same issue observed that those matters should await the decision of the Hon'ble Nine Judges Bench and accordingly, the matter came to be adjourned sine die and therefore, the present writ petition also is required to be kept pending, awaiting the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Nine Judges Bench.

¶13

3.It is not the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all matters in connection with the demand of service tax on renting immovable properties throughout the country, should be kept in abeyance pending the decision of the Hon'ble Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its interim order has gone to the extent of enabling the respondents to levy service tax on the future liability and as such if the present writ petition is kept pending, thereby disentitling the respondent from collecting the service tax for the future liability, it would go against the indent behind the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also.

¶14

4.In view of the same, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies, subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Hon'ble Nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the respondents also be given similar liberty to claim service tax on renting of immovable properties till such time. In the light of the above observation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the present writ petition.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

5.Reiterating the liberty granted to both the parties, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶17

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
pnn
To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi.
2. The Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3. Executive Officer,
and Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Erode Division,
Erode.
+1 CC to Mr. Liagath Ali, Advocate sr 60942.
+1 CC to Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Advocate sr 61431.
+1 CC to Mr.R.Bharathkumar, Advocate sr 61579.

¶18

W.P.No.16131 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
PPA(CO)
SP(22/08/2019)

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Erode District Cooperative v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erode District Cooperative v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Vs the Secretary to Government

The Madras Aluminum Company Vs the Assistant Commissioner

R.Subramanian Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Hyundai Motor India Ltd, Vs the Department of Reenue

M/S.Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Venkatachalam Vs the District Collector