S. Harish vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, S. Harish, was granted licenses to operate a book stall at Nirmal Bus Station and to sell Pathanjali products and popcorn at Bhainsa Bus Station by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). The TSRTC demanded GST from the petitioner on the license fee for these shops. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this demand, arguing it was illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the agreement, and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that as a licensee, they were not liable to pay GST on the license fee. An interim order was passed directing the respondents not to demand GST. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted that the cause of action no longer survived as the license periods had commenced and were ongoing.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the Court seeking a declaration that the demand for GST on the license fee was illegal and that they were not liable to pay it as per the license deed. An interim order had been passed stating that prima facie the petitioner was not liable to pay GST as they were not a registered dealer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action for the writ petition no longer survived as the license periods had commenced. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents did not dispute this submission. Therefore, bringing these submissions on record, the writ petition was closed. The Court did not make any final determination on the legality of the GST demand itself, but rather closed the petition based on the changed circumstances and the lack of dispute from the respondents regarding the survival of the cause of action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in demanding Goods and Service Tax (GST) from the petitioner on the license fee for operating shops at bus stations is illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the agreement, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as per the terms and conditions of the license deed? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are not liable to pay GST on the license fee because they are not a registered dealer and the demand is contrary to the license agreement and principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the interim order which prima facie found them not liable. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by TSRTC, did not dispute the petitioner's submissions regarding the cause of action not surviving. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the legality of the GST demand itself.