The contention of the petitioner-society is that it has been established primarily for the purpose of imparting of education and that it does so, through its Special Purpose Vehicle. Therefore, to the extent the petitioner-society imparts education through its Special Purpose Vehicle, 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. The matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh consideration.
Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Advance Authority Ruling -- The petitioner-society is a Charitable Institution and having been formed primarily for the purpose of imparting education. The petitioner submitted it is squarely covered by the category of “educational institution” and therefore, it is exempt from requirement of registration. The petitioner sought an advance ruling on the question of its exemption from the requirement of registration and liability to pay tax. The AAR vide its ruling dated 4th May 2019 held that as Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences run by the petitioner-society is the entity which actually imparts education, the petitioner-society could not be termed as “educational institution”. The said Ruling was challenged by the petitioner-society before the AAAR, which has upheld the order. The petitioner counsel submitted that the basic question is that as to whether or not the petitioner-society on its own strength and without any reference to MGIMS can be considered to be an ‘educational institution’ and therefore, the Advance Rulings given by both the Authorities have been given without applying mind to the basic facts of the case. The Court observed that that these orders do not answer the basic question raised by the petitioner-society. The authorities held 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 contention of the petitioner has neither been considered nor has it been answered specifically by these authorities. Both the orders are erroneous and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders. The matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh consideration and appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it.
The contention of the petitioner-society is that it has been established primarily for the purpose of imparting of education and that it does so, through its Special Purpose Vehicle. Therefore, to the extent the petitioner-society imparts education through its Special Purpose Vehicle, 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. The matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh consideration.
Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Advance Authority Ruling -- The petitioner-society is a Charitable Institution and having been formed primarily for the purpose of imparting education. The petitioner submitted it is squarely covered by the category of “educational institution” and therefore, it is exempt from requirement of registration. The petitioner sought an advance ruling on the question of its exemption from the requirement of registration and liability to pay tax. The AAR vide its ruling dated 4th May 2019 held that as Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences run by the petitioner-society is the entity which actually imparts education, the petitioner-society could not be termed as “educational institution”. The said Ruling was challenged by the petitioner-society before the AAAR, which has upheld the order. The petitioner counsel submitted that the basic question is that as to whether or not the petitioner-society on its own strength and without any reference to MGIMS can be considered to be an ‘educational institution’ and therefore, the Advance Rulings given by both the Authorities have been given without applying mind to the basic facts of the case. The Court observed that that these orders do not answer the basic question raised by the petitioner-society. The authorities held 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 contention of the petitioner has neither been considered nor has it been answered specifically by these authorities. Both the orders are erroneous and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders. The matter is remanded back to the Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling for fresh consideration and appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it.