Kanagaraj. V vs. The Government Of Tamilnadu

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the first to fourth respondents (Public Works Department officials) to seek reimbursement of tax on account of an increase in the tax rate after the implementation of GST. This was to be done by applying the principle enshrined in Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim but directed the respondents to consider the representation in light of the aforementioned provisions and a previous High Court order. The Court noted that the previous order in M/s. Sree Saravana Engineering Bhavani (P) Ltd. had directed the respondents to consider representations in light of GST enactments, Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and relevant government orders, and to give notice to the petitioner to substantiate their case within eight weeks. The Court stated it did not wish to take an alternate view.

Facts

The petitioner, V. Kanagaraj, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 (various officials of the Public Works Department) to disburse Service Tax, Interest, and Penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, based on his representation dated August 7, 2019. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in a similar case (V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu). The respondents, however, produced an order from the Principal Seat of the High Court in M/s. Sree Saravana Engineering Bhavani (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, which dealt with the implications of the transition from the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to the GST Acts, 2017, and the applicability of Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Public Works Department respondents to disburse Service Tax, Interest, and Penalty amounts for services rendered between 2015 and 2017, based on his representation dated August 7, 2019? (Question of law and fact, concerning the disbursement of tax dues). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a previous High Court order in V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu directed the Public Works Department to consider similar claims, implying a right to relief. Respondents' contention: The respondents relied on the order in M/s. Sree Saravana Engineering Bhavani (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, which addressed the complexities of tax adjustments during the transition from VAT to GST, particularly in the context of work contracts and Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. They implied that the petitioner's claim should be considered in light of these provisions and the relevant government orders.