Ramnath.S vs. The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration

Facts

The petitioners, S. Ramnath and C. Ganesan, were operating pay-and-use gents' toilets at the MGR Bus Stand in Madurai under licenses granted by the Madurai Municipal Corporation. They sought an extension of their licenses as a form of repayment for Goods and Services Tax (GST) amounts they had collected, which they contended was against a circular dated 03.05.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, including the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, the Commissioner of Madurai Municipal Corporation, and the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, to grant this extension. The specific locations for the toilets were Marina Hotel Platform, Platform No. 2, Platform No. 3, and Platform No. 4.

Held

The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction, made an endorsement to withdraw the writ petitions. The Court recorded this endorsement and dismissed the Writ Petitions as withdrawn. However, the dismissal was subject to specific conditions. Firstly, the petitioners were permitted to participate in the upcoming auction to be floated by the respondent corporation for the pay-and-use toilets. Secondly, they were allowed to continue operating the existing pay-and-use toilets until the next auction was concluded. No costs were awarded. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding the GST collection or the applicability of the cited circular and notification. The issue of whether the GST collection was indeed against the circular and notification, and consequently, whether an extension of license was a valid recourse, was not adjudicated upon.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an extension of their license to collect fees from users of gents' toilets as a form of repayment for GST collected, based on the circular dated 03.05.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)? The petitioners argued that the GST collected was against the aforementioned circular and notification, implying they should not have paid or collected it, and sought an extension of their license as compensation or a means to offset this perceived incorrect collection. They relied on Circular No. 1305/2016/D2 dated 03.05.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioners.