Madurai Central Market vs. The Union Of INDIA
Facts
The Madurai Central Market Tomato & English Vegetables Merchant Association, through its President, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus. The petitioner requested that Respondent No. 4 (Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai) be restrained from collecting GST along with monthly rental from its members for their shops in the Central Market, Madurai. The association also sought a direction for the respondents to consider their representation dated 09.02.2019 and grant them an exemption from GST collection. The petitioner had previously submitted this representation to Respondent No. 4, but it remained unconsidered, leading to the present petition.
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, acknowledged that the 2nd respondent (Secretary, GST Council Secretariat) is the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's representation. Consequently, the Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2019. This consideration must include affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court mandated that this exercise be completed within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. No costs were awarded. The primary issue of whether GST should be collected or if an exemption should be granted was not decided on merits, but rather the process for its consideration was directed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 4 to refrain from collecting GST along with monthly rental from the petitioner's association members for their shops in the Madurai Central Market, and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's grievance and grant an exemption, as per the representation dated 09.02.2019? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to prevent the collection of GST on shop rentals and to obtain an exemption based on their representation. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, it notes that the 2nd respondent (Secretary, GST Council Secretariat) was identified as the concerned authority to consider the representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA and W.M.P(MD)No.4053 of 2019 Madurai Central Market Tomato & English Vegetables Merchant Association Rep. by its President, S.Neelamegam. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 2.The Secretary, GST Council Secretariat, 5th Floor, Jeevan Bharath Building, New Delhi-110 001. 3.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by is Secretary to Government, (Home Department), Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 4.The Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 6.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 5. .. Respondents
(R5 and R6 are Impleaded Vide Court Order Dated 16.04.2019 in WMP(MD)No.4427/2019)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed
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.