TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ached the petitioner, the petitioner had, after identifying the lands in Theni and Dindigul District to the extent of 250.18 acres, entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent, by lease agreement dated 26.05.2017, whereby the land has been entrusted to the first respondent for 27 years, that is long term lease, for using it as solar power project to generate 50MW electricity. 4.In this context, it is the further case of the petitioner that, at the time of agreement, there has been a clause in clause 14, whereby it has been agreed by both parties that, payment of taxes, rates, cess and other levy including penalties on Corporation/Municipal/Panchayat property tax, Urban Land tax etc., due to the State and Central Government or other local or other civil authorities including enhancements and new introductions shall be to the account of the First Party ie., the petitioner herein. 5.This agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 26.05.2017, before which, the possession of the land was given to the first respondent on 24.05.2017. While so, the central GST was introduced on 01.07.2017, whereby central GST as a service provider has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red under Entry 49 of List II, that is State List of Schedule 7 of the Constitution and therefore, if at all any tax to be levied on lands and buildings, that shall be levied only by invoking the power or procedure as contemplated under the Constitution, especially, under Entry 49 of List II of the Schedule 7 by the State. Therefore, the very power of the parliament to enact such a legislation to impose GST on lands and buildings by invoking its legislative power under Entry 97 of the List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution under residual entry is unconstitutional. This issue, according to the petitioner is concerned, being the larger controversy, had been referred to a larger bench of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in Union of India vs. UTV News limited [2018 13 GSTL 3(SC)]. Therefore, unless and until the issue, which is pending before the constitution bench is decided one way or other, the question of imposing any GST component on the lands and buildings, especially in the case of the petitioner that to for a leased out larger extent of lands for a long term lease to the first respondent, does not arise. 11.That apart, assuming that for the time being, if at all GST is to be lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a lis arises out of terms of contract between the parties, where the provision of invoking arbitration clause under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available in writing, where both parties have signed, without invoking the arbitration clause, neither party can be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the learned counsel for the first respondent would also submit that, whatever be the issue raised in this writ petition, that lis can very well be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of sole arbitrator within the meaning of Clause 21 of the agreement and therefore, the parties can be relegated to the arbitrator, he submitted. 15.The very same contention as has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has been reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents also. 16.I have heard the rival submissions of all the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court. 17.Though, Mr.B.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a detailed submission as to the liability of the parties, both the petitioner a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, this Court has not expressed any view on the interpretation of sentences made in Clause 14 of the agreement, because, if such an interpretative statement is made by this Court, this will hamper the prospects of both parties before the tribunal. 21.As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is a clear term in Clause 21 of the agreement, which reads thus: "21.Any and all controversy(ies) / dispute(s) /difference(s) /claim(s) /claim(s) in tort arising out of or in connection with or in relation to this agreement, including its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration of sole Arbitrator nominated by the both parites mutually under the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 as amended upto date. The award so rendered shall be final and binding on the parties. The language shall be English and the venue shall be at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The Jurisdictional Court of Tamil Nadu alone shall prevail over this agreement including proceedings arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended upto date." Clause 14 of the agreement also reads thus: "14.The payment of a....