Madras High Court division bench observed that the challenge to the Circular dated 07.11.2019 has been made precisely in reference to the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9857 of 2018.
The Bench found from the representation of the petitioner “that, without taking the remedy provided under law the writ petition has been filed, as if the only remedy lies in the High Court and not elsewhere.”
Before addressing the issue, Madras High Court division bench find it necessary to address the locus of the petitioner. The writ petition has not been filed by the educational institution, but by the individual showing him to be the Correspondent of Little Flower Matriculation School.
Madras High Court division bench asked counsel for the petitioner to refer to the document, where the order of court exists. It was stated that there exists no order of the court and thereby the statement of fact given in the representation in reference to the court's order became false.
While considering the rival submission, the Madras High Court observed that the petitioner was knowing about the commercial use of the building not only at the time of vacation from the office but also while working with his senior in the same building.
A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, Madras High Court found that to seek the direction aforesaid, the petitioner has made a reference of the arrangement in the State of Andhra Pradesh, where, according to the petitioner, their exist check dams at every 1.5 kms of the river flow.
A single-judge bench of Madras High Court observed that in law and on the clear language of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , the impugned retention of the vehicle is clearly invalid.