G.Ravindran, vs Union of India,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 04, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1741201

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1741201
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr Justice Anita Sumanth,Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Feb 04, 2025
Case Number: WP/22912/2009

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Ravindran,

Respondent

Union of India,

Excerpt

.....is covered by the decision of the division bench of this court in g.v. matheswaran v. union of india (2015(37) s.t.r. 881 (mad.)) upholding the provisions of section 65(105)(zzzz) and 65(90a) of he finance act, 1994, as amended by the finance act, 2010 and section 77 of the finance act, 2010. the operative portion of the saidjudgment reads as follows:'84. it is to be pointed out, at this juncture, that after the judgmentrendered by the high court in home solutions-i case, an amendment was brought forth in the finance act, 2010, in respect of section 65(105)(zzzz), whereby, renting authority itself is regarded as taxable service and the said amendment was given retrospective effect with effect from 1-6-2007 and it was also put to challenge and the full bench of delhi high curt, in home solutions-ii case, has upheld the validity of the said provisions as well as the retrospective amendment. further, in the civil appeal prefered as against the full bench judgment of delhi high court, the full bench judgment of delhi high court is yet to be reversed. that apart, following the decision rendered in home solutions-ii case and the subsequent division bench judgment of the rajasthan high court reported in(2012) 52 vst 409(raj.), purshottam das malpani v. union ofindia and others, this court, at paragraph no. 30 above, has upheld the provisions of section 65(105)(zzzz) and 65(90a) of the finance act, 1994, as amended by the finance act, 2010 and section 77 of the finance act, 2010. therefore, in the light of the above, the challenge made to the above said provisions is liable to be rejected.'dr. anita sumanth,j.andc. kumarappan,j.nv3. in view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. no costs. connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (a.s.m.j.) (c.k.j.) 04.02.2025 nv index: yes/no neutral citation: yes/nospeaking order/non-speaking orderto1. the secretary, ministry of finance, department of revenue, new delhi.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN & M.P. No.1 of 2009 G. Ravindran ..Petitioner Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi 110 001.
2. Commissioner of Service Tax,
MHU Complex, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. ..Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of aWrit of Declaration to declare 65 (90a) and 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Notification No. 24/2007 dt. 22.05.2007 and Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 04.012008 issued by the 1st respondent herein seeking to levy service tax on renting of immovable property as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(d), Art. 246(3) and 265 of the Constitution of India and further direct the 2nd respondent and his men to refund the service tax already collected without authority of law. For Petitioner :: Ms.G. Vardini For Respondents :: Mr.V. Prashanth Kiran Govt. Advocate (Taxes)

ORDER

(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J)

The prayer in the writ petition is for a Writ of Declaration to declare 65 (90a) and 65 (105) (zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Notification No. 24/2007 dt. 22.05.2007 and Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 04.012008 issued by the 1st respondent seeking to levy service tax on renting of immovable property as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(d), Art. 246(3) and 265 of the Constitution of India and further direct the 2nd respondent and his men to refund the service tax already collected without authority of law.

2. Both learned counsel would accede to the position that the

issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in G.V. Matheswaran V. Union of India (2015(37) S.T.R. 881 (Mad.)) upholding the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzz) and 65(90a) of he Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 2010. The operative portion of the said

judgment reads as follows:

'84. It is to be pointed out, at this juncture, that after the judgment

rendered by the High Court in Home Solutions-I case, an amendment was brought forth in the Finance Act, 2010, in respect of Section 65(105)(zzzz), whereby, renting authority itself is regarded as taxable service and the said amendment was given retrospective effect with effect from 1-6-2007 and it was also put to challenge and the Full Bench of Delhi High Curt, in Home Solutions-II case, has upheld the validity of the said provisions as well as the retrospective amendment. Further, in the Civil Appeal prefered as against the Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court, the Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court is yet to be reversed. That apart, following the decision rendered in Home Solutions-II case and the subsequent Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in

(2012) 52 VST 409(Raj.), Purshottam Das Malpani V. Union of

India and others, this Court, at paragraph no. 30 above, has upheld the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzz) and 65(90a) of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 2010. Therefore, in the light of the above, the challenge made to the above said provisions is liable to be rejected.'

Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

AND

C. KUMARAPPAN,J.

3. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (A.S.M.J.) (C.K.J.) 04.02.2025 nv Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi 110 001.

2. Commissioner of Service Tax, MHU Complex, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties G.Ravindran, vs Union of India, Same Judge Honourable Dr Justice Anita Sumanth,Honourable Mr.Justice C.K...