In a partial relief to the Kasturba Health Society, the Bombay High Court remanded the issue back to the Maharashtra AAR as proper facts were not considered.
The question raised by the petitioner-society was as to whether or not, the petitioner-society, on its own strength and in its own right, could be said to be entitled to seek exemption from the requirement of registration and also discharge of Goods and Service Tax liability and this is on the ground that the petitioner-society could be considered to be a society having been established with the predominant object of imparting education and therefore, the society would be entitled to have status of an ‘educational institution’.
This question, of course, has been answered by the first Authority as well as appellate Authority by saying that the petitioner-society could not claim itself to be an ‘educational society’, but the reason given by both these authorities is not related to the activities or the business, the aims and objects of the petitioner-society. The reason given by both these authorities is that the petitioner-society is not an ‘educational institution’ because the activity of imparting education is carried on not by the petitioner-society in actual terms, but by its Special Purpose Vehicle-MGIMS.
Mr. Anand Parchure, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner-society, urged that it has been established primarily for the purpose of imparting education and that it does so, through its Special Purpose Vehicle viz. MGIMS.
The division bench of Justice Anil S.Kilor and Justice Sunil B.Shukre held that to the extent the petitioner-society imparts education through its Special Purpose Vehicle-MGIMS, the society would also be eligible to be termed as ‘educational institution’ and therefore, entitled for seeking exemption from the requirement of registration and GST liability, is the submission of the society. This contention of the petitioner, as seen from both the orders challenged here, has neither been considered nor has it been answered specifically by these authorities. The authorities ought to have considered this contention independently of the activity of MGIMS and in the light of the manner in which the aims and objects of the society are fulfilled by the petitioner-society. Such exercise having not been done by the authorities below and no findings on these lines having been rendered by both the Authorities.
Therefore, the court held that both the orders, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, are erroneous and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The question posed by the petitioner-society in respect of which Advance Ruling was solicited, must be answered specifically by these Authorities.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
