Rajeev Yuvajana Sangham vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the authorities were not right in demanding GST on the monthly license fee paid by the petitioner. The Court found that Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 clearly exempts services under Heading 9994, which pertains to "Services by way of public conveniences such as provision of facilities of bathroom, washrooms, lavatories, urinal or toilets," with a nil rate of tax. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.588 dated 12.12.2017 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh provided a similar exemption for services rendered by such agencies. As these notifications were in force and had not been modified or overridden, the Court concluded that the petitioner was indeed exempt from paying GST. The action of the respondents in demanding CGST and APGST was declared illegal and improper. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, awarded contracts for cleaning toilets at bus stations, was paying 18% GST (9% CGST and 9% SGST) on the monthly license fee. The petitioner challenged the demand for GST, citing Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, which exempted GST on services under Heading 9994 (public conveniences like toilets), and a similar exemption granted by the Andhra Pradesh Government through G.O.Ms.No.588 dated 12.12.2017. The petitioner contended that these notifications rendered the GST demand illegal. The respondents, including the Commercial Tax Department, opposed this, arguing the notifications did not apply. No counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents despite opportunities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the authorities were right in demanding GST on the monthly license fee paid by the petitioner for the work contract of maintenance of toilets, considering the exemptions granted by Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and G.O.Ms.No.588, turning on the applicability of these notifications to the services provided by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and G.O.Ms.No.588 provide a clear exemption for services related to public conveniences, including toilet maintenance, making the demand for GST illegal and contrary to established exemptions. The petitioner relied on these notifications. The revenue (represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax) argued that the notifications relied upon by the petitioner do not apply to the specific case on hand, without further elaboration on why they are inapplicable.