A. Selvam vs. The Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, A. Selvam, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated July 25, 2026, issued by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Chitira Ratha Vallaba Perumal Thirukovil. The notice demanded payment of Rs. 7,97,685/- towards licence fee for Fasli 1436, including 18% GST on this amount, for the sale of Archanai Porutkal within the temple premises. The petitioner sought to quash this demand, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The respondents, including the Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner of the HR and CE Department, along with the temple authorities, were arrayed. The respondents indicated that the petitioner had not paid the licence fee or the demanded tax amount.
Held
The Court held that, prima facie, the sale of pooja items within the temple is exempted from GST in terms of the relevant GST Notification. The Court's reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission and the precedent set by previous orders of the High Court in similar cases. The Court directed the respondents not to collect the demanded amount from the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that if the fifth respondent (the temple) were to incur any tax liability, the petitioner would be obligated to reimburse the same and pursue legal remedies as available. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, making no specific finding on the exact GST provisions or notifications, but relying on the general principle of exemption for such sales. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the reimbursement clause implies a potential future liability for the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for GST on the licence fee granted for the sale of Archanai Porutkal within the temple premises is legally sustainable, considering potential exemptions under GST notifications? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the sale of pooja items within the temple is exempted from GST, citing a GST Notification. The petitioner relied on previous orders passed by the High Court in similar matters, including V.S. Raghavan vs. Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Samayapuram, Trichy and others (W.P.(MD) No. 17590 of 2025, dated 31.07.2025), and two other writ petitions filed by the petitioner himself (W.P.(MD) No.18092 of 2026 and W.P.(MD) No.18113 of 2026, both dated 30.06.2026). The respondents did not appear to have presented any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the GST exemption, other than noting the petitioner's non-payment of the demanded amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. Mr.S.Manohar, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents 4 and 5. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. 3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Notice demanding a sum of Rs.7,97,685/- towards licence fee pursuant to the tender floated by the fifth respondent Temple for Fasli 1436, including GST at 18% on the aforesaid amount.
It is informed by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner has neither paid the licence fee nor the tax amount demanded.
The issue appears to be covered in favour of the petitioner in terms of a series of orders that have been passed by this Court in the following cases:
V.S.Raghavan vs. Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Mariamman Temple, Samayapuram, Trichy and others (W.P.(MD) No. 17590 of 2025, dated 31.07.2025;
A. Selvam vs. the Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others (W.P. (MD) No.18092 of 2026 dated 30.06.2026); and 3. A.Selvam vs. The Commissioner, HR&CE Department and others (W.P. (MD) No.18113 of 2026 dated 30.06.2026)
Prima facie, the sale of pooja items within the temple is exempted in terms of the GST Notification. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to collect the above amount. However, it is made clear that in case the fifth respondent is visited with any tax liability, the petitioner will have to reimburse the same and work out the remedy in the manner known to law.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 12.08.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1. The Commissioner, HR and CE Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2. The Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Madurai.
The Assistant Commissioner, HR and CE Department, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.