9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 109 - HC - GSTApplicability of principle of mutuality - challenge to SCN issued u/s 73(1) and 74(1) of the CGST / SGST Acts - HELD THAT - Since only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, it is premature for the petitioner to challenge the same by approaching this Court by filing a writ petition. If the petitioner has a case that services to its members are not liable to GST, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the authorities. Any contention of the petitioner on the basis of the findings of this Court in INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA STATE BRANCH, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KERALA, GST COUNCIL, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, KOCHI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, KOZHIKODE. 2024 (7) TMI 1448 - KERALA HIGH COURT can also be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with the law. This writ petition will stand disposed of directing the respondent to consider the claim, if any, of the petitioner after adverting to any reply that may be filed by the petitioner and affording to them an opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
In the case before the Kerala High Court, the petitioner, a Co-operative Society, challenged show cause notices issued under Sections 73(1) and 74(1) of the CGST/SGST Acts, arguing that the principle of mutuality exempted them from GST liability until 31.12.2021. They referenced the judgment in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, which they claimed supported their position.
The Government Pleader countered that the principle of mutuality did not apply to the services offered by the petitioner, similar to the Indian Medical Association case, and that the petitioner must substantiate their claim before the competent authority. Justice Gopinath P. opined that since only a show cause notice was issued, it was premature to challenge it via a writ petition. The petitioner must present their case to the authorities, who should consider any reply and provide a hearing in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions for the respondent to address the petitioner's claims within two months, without the court expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
|
