ORDER : 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the demand notices, whereby, demand of 18% GST over and above the quoted price has been made and the letter whereby, their representations have been rejected and they were granted three days’ time to deposit the premium amount along with 18% GST over the bid price quoted by the petitioners. 2. The facts of the present cases are that the Respondent - Raipur Development Authority under the Devendra Nagar (Commercial Complex) Scheme floated a tender for allotment of plots in a Commercial Complex for 30 years’ lease at Devendra Nagar, Raipur and same was published in the newspaper on 01.03.2018. The petitioners and other interested participants participated in the bid process for allotment of plots in the commercial complex and their offers were accepted. The petitioners were allotted different plots admeasuring each one 750 sq.ft. for 30 years’ lease. In the tender document it was provided that the participant has to deposit 25% of the tender amount as earnest money for participating in the bid through a Bank Draft or Pay Order/Banker Cheque. 3. When the petitioners received a letter from the respondent-Raipur Development Authority they came to know that the plots allotted by the respondent-Raipur Development Authority falls under the levy of GST, whereas, this condition was not mentioned in the tender document. The petitioners made representations before the respondent-Raipur Development Authority to the effect that since the condition of levy of GST was not mentioned in the tender document nor in the advertisement, therefore, subsequently, it cannot be levied. In turn, the respondent-Raipur Development Authority rejected their representations and directed the petitioners to deposit 50% of the tender amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the action of the respondent-Raipur Development Authority is arbitrary and illegal in levying 18% GST over and above the offer price and the action of the respondent-Raipur Development Authority infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners and is in violation of Article 19(1)(g), 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in the tender document or in the advertisement, there was no whisper regarding 18% GST and subsequently, this condition has been imposed. 5. It is also submitted that in the tender document or in the advertisement, there was no whisper regarding 18% GST and subsequently, this condition has been imposed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would draw attention of this Court towards the clarification dated 30.04.2019 issued by Revenue Tax Research Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of India with regard to “Heading 9972 Real Estate Services” and submit that premium charges payable in respect of service by way of granting of long term lease (of 30 years or more) of industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business, provided by the State Government, Industrial Development Corporations or by any other entity having 50% or more ownership of Central Government, State Government or Union Territory to the industrial units or the developers in any industrial or financial business area has been exempted and there is no need to pay the premium in this regard. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Raipur Development Authority would submit that the issue involved in the present matter is not res integra and this issue has been decided by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and another Vs. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No.12194/2017, dated 28.04.2018 where it is held that the demand for payment of GST is in accordance with law and said demand cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. He would further submit that the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 23068/2018 ( Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and another Vs. Union of India and Others) decided on 09.11.2022. He would further submit that the letter dated 30.04.2019 is a clarification to the Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. He would also submit that the clarification was issued after issuance of demand notice dated 12.03.2018 therefore, it would not apply in the present cases and further in the clarification, exemption has been granted for industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business, provided by the State Government or any other authority, whereas, in the present case, commercial plots have been allotted to the petitioners, therefore, the exemption given in the letter dated 30.04.2019 would not apply. He has referred to the First Notification No.11/2017 issued by the Revenue Tax Research Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of India relating to the Central Tax (R) dated 28.06.2017 where Serial No.16, Heading No.9972 deals with “Real Estate Services”. Again, at Serial No.220, Heading 9972 deals with “Real Estate Services”. Serial No.221 describes “Group 99721-Real Estate Services involving owned or leased property”. 7. Mr. Shrivastava has further referred to a Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017, where at Serial No.41, Heading 9972 “Upfront amount (called as premium, salami, cost, price, development charges or by any other name)” payable in respect of service by way of granting of long term lease (of 30 years or more) of industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business, provided by the State Government, Industrial Development Corporations or undertakings or by any other entity having 50% or more ownership of Central Government, State Government, Union Territory to the industrial units or the developers in any industrial or financial business area were exempted from GST. Thus, he would submit that grant of long term lease of industrial plots or plots provided by the State Government, Industrial Development Corporations were exempted from the purview of GST prior to issuance of tender but in that Notification, commercial plot is not included therefore, the clarification letter dated 30.04.2019 will not help the petitioners. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the letter dated 30.04.2019 is a clarification of the Original Notification No.11/2017 dated 28.06.2017; therefore, it would apply with its full force in the present cases. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case has been resolved by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and another (supra) and the same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 23068/2018 (Builders Association of Navi Mumbai and another Vs. Union of India and Others) dated 09.11.2022 and further the claim of the petitioners does not fall within the purview of the exemption granted under “Heading 9972” of Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 and letter dated 30.04.2019 whereby same has been clarified. Thus, she would submit that all these petitions preferred by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Union of India and Others) dated 09.11.2022 and further the claim of the petitioners does not fall within the purview of the exemption granted under “Heading 9972” of Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 and letter dated 30.04.2019 whereby same has been clarified. Thus, she would submit that all these petitions preferred by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 11. From careful scrutiny of the documents, it appears that a tender was floated by the respondent-Raipur development Authority for allotment of 14 commercial plots admeasuring 750 sq.ft. each. The offset price for each plot was Rs.97,50,000/- and Rs.24,38,000/- was quoted as earnest money. The last date for submission of the bid was 15.03.2018. 12. The petitioners participated in the bid, they were declared successful and according to the tender document, the petitioners had to deposit the amount of premium. The respondent-Raipur Development Authority issued notices to the petitioners to deposit 50% of premium amount within 15 days along with 18% GST. It was also provided that in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited, the allotment proposal would be cancelled and the earnest money would be forfeited. The petitioners made representations before the authorities which were rejected and they were granted three days’ time to deposit 50% of the premium amount. The petitioners have assailed these notices before this Court by filing these petitions. 13. The certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017”) would be relevant for disposal of the present petitions. The petitioners have assailed these notices before this Court by filing these petitions. 13. The certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017”) would be relevant for disposal of the present petitions. Section 2(31) of the Act of 2017 defines ‘consideration’ which reads as under : “S.2(31) "consideration" in relation to the supply of goods or services or both includes - (a) any payment made or to be made, whether in money or otherwise, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government; (b) the monetary value of any act or forbearance, in respect of, in response to, or for the inducement of, the supply of goods or services or both, whether by the recipient or by any other person but shall not include any subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government: Provided that a deposit given in respect of the supply of goods or services or both shall not be considered as payment made for such supply unless the supplier applies such deposit as consideration for the said supply;” 14. Section 7 of the Act of 2017 deals with ‘scope of supply’ and same reads as under : S.7. Scope of supply -(1) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “supply” includes-- (a) all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business; (b) import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business;[and]; (c) the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration.” 15. From bare reading of Section 7 of the Act of 2017, it is conspicuous that the ‘supply’ includes supply of goods or services, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease etc. From bare reading of Section 7 of the Act of 2017, it is conspicuous that the ‘supply’ includes supply of goods or services, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease etc. Further, Schedule-II of the Act of 2017 deals with land and building and any lease, tenancy, licence to occupy land is a supply of service and any lease or letting out of a building including commercial, industrial or residential complex for business, either wholly or partly is a supply of service. 16. From conjoint reading of Section 7 and Schedule II of the Act of 2017, it is crystal clear that lease of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commercial activity is a supply of service and it comes under the purview of Goods and Services Tax and same is taxable under the Act of 2017. 17. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai (supra) at concluding para 20 & 21 held as under : “20. In the passing, we are of the opinion that the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, while considering the demand, not arising out of the GST, but under the Finance Act in relation to the services of renting of immovable property of Greater Noida, has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the same was a taxable service and on the consideration received, the service tax could have been levied and demanded. Once we agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench, then, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the paragraphs in the Division Bench judgment. We are not in agreement with the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the demand is contrary to law or unfair, unjust and unreasonable in any manner. 21. We are, therefore, of the clear view that the demand for payment of GST is in accordance with law. The said demand cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There would be no order as to costs.” 18. The said demand cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There would be no order as to costs.” 18. The petition preferred by the petitioner in the matter of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai (supra) before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was dismissed and thereafter, SLP was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. 19. Now coming to the next question with regard to clarification letter dated 30.04.2019, the petitioners have to demonstrate that the plots allotted to them would come within the purview of industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business, provided by the State Government. Until and unless this condition is fulfilled, the petitioners cannot claim benefit of this circular. In the Notification No.11/2017 dated 28.06.2017 at Entry No.16, Heading 9972 deals with “Real Estate Services” and in the scheme of Classification of Services, Entry No.220, Heading 9972 deals with “Real Estate Services”. Likewise, Serial No. 221, Group 99721 deals with “Real Estate Services involving owned or leased property.” In the Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 the Ministry of Finance, Government of India has clarified that there is no need to pay premium in respect of service by way of granting of long term lease of industrial plots or plots for development of infrastructure for financial business, provided by the State Government and again on 30.04.2019 with certain modifications, same proposition has been reiterated by the Department. But in none of the Notifications or Clarifications, commercial plots are included under the “Heading 9972”, therefore, contention made by the petitioners regarding exemption is misconceived. 20. Taking into consideration the provisions of the Act of 2017, particularly Sections 2(31), 7 and Schedule-II of the Act of 2017 and further the Notification No.11/2017 and clarification dated 30.04.2019, the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Builders Association of Navi Mumbai (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that the demand for payment of GST is in accordance with law and the demand notices issued to the petitioners do not suffer from any error of law. Consequently, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 21. No order as to cost(s).