M/S. Madhavaraja Club vs The State Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
2021 Latest Caselaw 4358 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2942 OF 2021(P)


PETITIONER:

               M/S. MADHAVARAJA CLUB,
               ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY, VIMAL VENU.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
               SMT.MEERA V.MENON
               SMT.K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX),
               OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GST
               DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001.

      2        THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
               STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001.

      3        THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
               TAX TOWERS, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

      4        STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.2942/2021              2


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that

despite availability of alternate remedy prescribed by the statute,

this writ petition, as framed and filed, is maintainable in the light

of the fact that in petitioner's own case, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed that the doctrine of mutuality is continuously

applicable to incorporated and unincorporated members' clubs

after the 46th Amendment added Article 366(29-A) to the

Constitution of India. Despite this binding precedent, the

impugned order came to be passed by the authority under the GST

Department, Kerala.

2. If that is so, at the most it can be said that the impugned

order is erroneous and that can be set right in a statutory appeal.

The petitioner has alternate and most efficacious remedy of appeal

in the matter.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of

with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate

Tribunal as provided by the statute. Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 31/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 31/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 31/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P1(c) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 31/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P2(c) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2020.

EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2020.

EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2020.

EXHIBIT P3(c) COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2020.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2020.

EXHIBIT P4(a) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2020.

EXHIBIT P4(b) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2020.

EXHIBIT P4(c) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/07/2020. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp