M/S. Bhavadharani Builders vs. The Executive Officer
Held
The Court held that it cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay GST at a particular rate. The determination of GST rates is a matter decided by the Central Government through notifications issued periodically. The petitioner cannot compel the Court to determine the applicable GST rate for the work order. The Court stated that the duty is cast upon the first respondent to adhere to the rules and regulations, and the Court cannot direct the first respondent to provide GST at a specific rate merely because the petitioner requests it. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The judgment also noted that the applicable GST rate shall be provided only by the first respondent, implying the responsibility lies with the executive authority to comply with the prevailing GST laws.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bhavadharani Builders, a works contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Executive Officer of Mallankinaru Town Panchayat, to pay GST at the rate of 18% for civil works supplied from January 1, 2022. The petitioner had submitted a representation on December 10, 2022, regarding this issue. The petitioner claimed they were engaged in various works by the first respondent and that the respondent had incorrectly included the GST tax component at 12%, whereas the petitioner contended it should be 18%. The respondents included various authorities from the Town Panchayat and the GST department.
Key Issues
1. Whether this Court can issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay GST at a specific rate of 18% for civil works supplied, in light of the petitioner's representation dated December 10, 2022, and the applicability of the GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the GST rate applicable to the civil works supplied should be 18%, and the first respondent had incorrectly applied a 12% rate. They sought a direction from the Court to rectify this. The petitioner relied on their representation dated December 10, 2022, as the basis for their claim. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the determination of GST rates is a function of the Central Government and not within the purview of the High Court to direct.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN M/s.Bhavadharani Builders, Rep by its Partner Mr.N.Palanikumar No.64, Pasupathi Street, Jeeva Main Road, Sellur, Madurai. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Officer, Mallankinaru Town Panchayat, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Madurai Zone, Office of the Madurai District Collector Campus, Madurai. 3.The Director of Town Panchayat, No.75, Santhome High Road, Urban Administrative Building, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Assistant Commissioner(ST)
Chokkikulam Assessment Circle, Madurai. ... 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 1st respondent to pay GST rate applicable at 18% of the GST Act with effect from 01.01.2022 for civil works supplied to the 1st respondent in the light of the petitioner's re
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.