Ravichandran. N vs. The Principal Government Secretary
Facts
The petitioner, N. Ravichandran, is an individual who undertook contract works for the fifth respondent, Puliyangudi Municipality, during the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The municipality deducted 2% GST from the petitioner's bills, amounting to Rs. 20,25,076. However, the municipality failed to remit this deducted GST amount. Consequently, the petitioner was compelled to directly remit the GST amount. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the fifth respondent to refund the deducted GST amount.
Held
The Court held that the fifth respondent, Puliyangudi Municipality, is obliged to refund the GST amount to the petitioner. The reasoning is that the municipality deducted the GST from the petitioner's bills but failed to remit it. The petitioner was then forced to directly pay the GST amount. Therefore, the municipality must reimburse the petitioner for the amount it deducted and failed to remit, which the petitioner subsequently paid. The Court directed the fifth respondent to refund the amount to the petitioner within twelve weeks. If the refund is made within this period, it will not carry interest. However, if the refund is delayed beyond twelve weeks, it will attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the cause of action arose. The Court consciously refrained from quantifying the exact refund amount as the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the fifth respondent (Puliyangudi Municipality) is obligated to refund the 2% GST amount of Rs. 20,25,076 deducted from the petitioner's bills for works done during 2022-23 and 2023-24, given that the petitioner directly remitted this amount. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the GST amount was deducted from their bills and subsequently paid directly by the petitioner to the revenue, the municipality is liable to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's order implies that the respondents did not contest the petitioner's claim for refund.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.12224 of 2024 N.Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Government Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai - 09. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration / Water Supply Department, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 28 3.The District Collector, District Collectorate Complex, Tenkasi District. 4.The Superintendent of CGST and Excise, Preventive Unit, Office of the Additional Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Head Quarters, Tirunelveli 627 007. 5.The Commissioner, Puliyangudi Municipality, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 5th respondent to forthwith refund the 2% GST amount, to the tune of Rs.20,25,076 /- deducted from the bills of the petition
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.