A.Selvam vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, A. Selvam, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 01.06.2026 issued by the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Chitira Ratha Vallaba Perumal Thirukovil. The notice pertained to a licence granted to the petitioner for the sale of Archanai Porutkal (pooja items) at the temple, identified as Pasali No.1436. The petitioner sought to quash this notice, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and without legal authority. Consequently, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents not to demand or collect Goods and Services Tax (GST) or any other amount pursuant to the impugned notice. The dispute concerns the current period.

Held

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition by following its previous order in W.P.(MD) No.17590 of 2025, which was in the case of V.S. Raghavan vs. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Arulmighu Mariamman Temple, Samayapuram, Trichy and others. The Court noted that the facts of the present case were identical to the previous writ petition, with the only difference being that the current dispute pertained to the current period. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as the earlier one. The Court also stated that it was open to the GST Authorities as well as the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. No order was made as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 01.06.2026, issued by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Chitira Ratha Vallaba Perumal Thirukovil, is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law, warranting its quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the respondents should be directed not to demand or collect GST or any other amount pursuant to the said impugned notice for Pasali No.1436? The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal, arbitrary, and without authority. The petitioner sought to quash the notice and prevent the demand and collection of GST. The respondents, including the Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department, and the temple authorities, were represented. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments presented by the respondents, but it indicates that the matter was disposed of by following a previous order of the Court in a similar writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.17590 of 2025).