M/S. Bhavadharani Builders vs. The Executive Officer
Held
The Court held that it cannot direct the first respondent to provide GST at a particular rate. The determination of GST rates is a matter for the Central Government, which issues notifications in that regard periodically. The petitioner cannot call upon the High Court to determine the GST rate applicable to their work order. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner is not resolvable by the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court stating that the applicable GST rate shall be provided only by the first respondent, implying adherence to the established procedures for rate determination. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bhavadharani Builders, a works contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner was engaged by the first respondent, the Executive Officer of Kariyapatti Town Panchayat, for various civil works. The petitioner contended that the GST tax component applicable to the works rendered should be 18%, but the first respondent had included it at 12%. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10.12.2022, seeking the correct GST rate. The writ petition sought a direction to the first respondent to issue a work order and agreement with the applicable GST rate of 18%. The respondents included various authorities from the Town Panchayat and the Commercial Tax Department, including the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST and the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court can direct a respondent to provide GST at a particular rate for a work order, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that they are a works contractor engaged in supplying works to government departments and that the applicable GST rate for their services should be 18%, not 12% as applied by the first respondent. They relied on their representation dated 10.12.2022 and sought a direction from the Court to fix the GST rate. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader and Government Advocate, 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 in a writ proceeding.
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, Kariyapatti 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) K.K.Nagar Assessment Circle, Madurai. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Deputy Commissioner(ST), Commercial Tax Department, Virudhunagar. 7.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST Chepauk, Exhilagam, Chennai. 8.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) New Delhi. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Con
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.