Kumar.R vs. The Managing Director

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.A3/571/2021 and impugned order dated 27.07.2022 bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.A3/915/2022 issued by the second respondent.

This above mentioned order dated 04.07.2022 was passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2021, which came to be disposed of on 15.07.2022. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The said Writ Petition was filed for the following relief: “To direct the respondents to refund the security deposit money being a sum of Rs.6,25,400/- and one month advance money being a sum of Rs.3,12,700/- deposited with the 2nd respondent for collecting the bottles and to sell snacks in the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.10699, Tirunelveli with interest.”

This Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observations: “During the pendency of the writ petition, TASMAC has passed an order rejecting the writ petitioner’s request. An endorsement dated 04.07.2022 has been passed by the District Manager. It is for the petitioner to question the same in the manner known to law. 2.With this liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a licencee for running bar between 01.01.2018 and 28.02.2019 for selling snack and to collect empty liquor bottles.

It is submitted that after the petitioner’s licence was surrendered and therefore, the second respondent was duty bound to return the security deposit of 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rs.6,25,400/- and one month advance for a sum of Rs.3,12,700/-. In spite of refund the same, the second respondent issued the impugned orders.

It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained GST registration and had paid tax to the Government and therefore, there is no justification in retaining the amount that was paid by the petitioner at the time of getting licence.

That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that GST registration of the petitioner has also been cancelled on 09.04.2019 and the amount determined by the Department for the same period has been stated as nill in Form GST REG 19 issued under Rule 22(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Tenkasi. It is further submitted that there is no justification in issuing the impugned orders.

Defending the same, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would draw the attention to the condition No.59 to the tender document and too condition No.10 in the licence issued to the petitioner for running the bar on 29.12.2017 by the second respondent in his proceedings bearing reference in 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Na.Ka.No.R3/3257/2017, which read as under: 59/nju;e;bjLf;fg;gLk; xg;ge;jjhuu; kj;jpa ruf;F kw;Wk; nrit “

In counter, the second respondent has also referred to make following submissions:

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The respondents is merely a State Marketing Company, engaged for selling liquor products in Tamil Nadu. For facilitating further sale of liquor, the petitioner has also licenced licencee to set up bars adjacent to the TASMAC Retail shops maintained by them. The petitioner was one of the successful bidder in Tenkasi. The petitioner as service provider/seller of snacks was required to obtain GST registration and pay tax on monthly basis. In case the petitioner fails to pay tax in time, it is for the Authorities under the respective GST enactments to recover and collect the same from the petitioner in the manner known to law 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 63 or Section 73 or under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments. In case the petitioner has failed to file Returns or had failed to obtain registration under the provisions of respective GST enactments, the Authorities under the respective GST enactments were empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 63 of respective GST enactments.

In this case, it is noticed that the petitioner had obtained registration, which was subsequently cancelled on 09.04.2019. The petitioner has also filed that receipts on the sales during the period. The petitioner may have evaded tax. However, such evasion of tax could not be justify by retention of the security deposit and one month advance paid by the petitioner at the time of granting the licence to the petitioner. It is for the concerned officer under the provisions of respective GST Act, 2017 to recover the same in the manner known to law from the petitioner. The second respondent cannot be retain the amount and exercise a lieu over it, based on the terms in the licence issued to the petitioner.

Under these circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed by directing the second respondent to refund the amounts collected together with 9% of the 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interest from the date, when the petitioner’s licence expired. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is allowed with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 26.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, CMDA Towers IV Floor, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Tirunelveli. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.

2024 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis