Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr Sridharan admitted that some of the demands may not strictly pertain to any activity concerning the functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. However, he submitted that the bulk of the demands in terms of the chart he prepared and handed over, related to the activities entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned show cause notices, at least to the extent they pertain to service tax demands on activities in relation to functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution, be interfered with in these matters.

22. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that most of the tax demands may not relate to any functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. They submitted that in respect of services rendered by MCGM in relation to the functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution, no tax demands have been raised. They submitted that even going by the chart tendered by Mr Sridharan, providing services of fungible FSI or collecting premium for additional FSI, etc. can hardly be described as services in relation to any functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. They submitted that each activity will have to be scrutinized for determining whether such activity has any relation to any functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. They submitted that such an exercise can be appropriately carried out by the adjudicating authorities and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

24. The circumstances in which the appeals require some percentage of the demanded tax to be pre-deposited do not render the appellate remedies any less efficacious. Therefore, the petitioners cannot urge a deviation from the general rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies based on such a contention. The practice of instituting petitions bypassing the statutory remedies only to avoid a pre-deposit cannot be encouraged.

25. At this stage, we cannot accept the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners about the petitioners' cases regarding the applicability of the exemption notification being crystal clear. We believe that examining the activities or the services in relation to which the taxes are demanded would be necessary. We also believe there are arguable issues regarding interpretation of functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the respondents have contended that the demands are in respect of activities that have no relation to any functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. All these are arguable issues that will involve the examination of factual aspects. Therefore, all WP-33260-2023 AND BATCH (F).DOCX these issues cannot be conveniently addressed in exercising our extraordinary and summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

26. The learned Counsel for the respondents are not entirely unjustified in contending that all the activities of the MCGM are not necessarily related to the functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. Certain activities may have a commercial element unrelated to any functions entrusted to the MCGM under Article 243W of the Constitution. It would be futile to contend that the tax demands are without jurisdiction in such a situation. In any event, the issue as to whether the demanded tax is covered by the exemption notification or the nil tax rate notification is an issue that will require adjudication in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. Such adjudication cannot be conveniently undertaken by this Court exercising summary though extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.