Kerala High Court
Al Salama Eye Research Foundation vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17408 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S. AL SALAMA EYE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
THEKKEKOOT BUILDINGS, PALAKKAD ROAD,
MALAPPURAM-679 322
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SAMSUDEEN A.
BY
ADV.HARISANKAR V. MENON
ADV.MEERA V.MENON
ADV.R.SREEJITH
ADV.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 002.
3 INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAIDAN GARHI,
NEW DELHI-110 068.
W.P.(C) No.17408/21 -:2:-
4 BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY
COIMBATORE-641 046,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
5 CENTRE FOR PARTICIPATORY AND ONLINE PROGRAMMES
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION,
BHARATIAR UNIVERSITY,
COIMBATORE-641 046,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
6 THE COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND CENTRAL
EXCISE,
CR BUILDINGS, MANNANCHIRA,
KOZHIKODE-673 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
SRI.MOHANAKANNAN K., SC, IGNOU
SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.17408/21 -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17408 of 2021
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order of assessment carried out
under section 73(2) and imposition of penalty under section 78(1) of
the Finance Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act').
2. Petitioner is a charitable trust conducting several
educational courses including B.Sc Optometry. It claimed exemption
from payment of service tax as an educational institution. However,
the benefit of exemption was refused by the order impugned on the
ground that the courses offered by the petitioner are in Kerala,
thereby violating territorial limits. Reliance is placed by the assessing
officer on notifications issued by the UGC dated 17.06.2013 and
public notice dated 27.06.2013.
3. I have heard Adv. Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Adv. P.Vijayakumar learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India on behalf of the 1 st respondent, Adv. Krishna Moorthy,
learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of 2 nd respondent as
well as Adv. Sreelal Warrier, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
6th respondent.
4. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to
persuade this Court that the finding of the assessing officer is
inherently incorrect especially in view of the decision of the Madras
High Court in Ext.P4 judgment in W.P. No.30039 of 2012, I am of the
view that since petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before
the Appellate Tribunal under section 86 of the Act, this writ petition
need not be entertained.
5. Even in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v.
M/s.Commercial Steel Ltd. (C.A. No.5121 of 2021) it was held that
the existence of an alternate remedy though not a bar to the
maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, still, a writ petition must be entertained only in exceptional
circumstances when there is a breach of fundamental rights or
violation of the principles of natural justice or if the order is passed in
excess of jurisdiction or when there is a challenge to the vires of the
statute.
6. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances arising in
the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I find that none of the exceptions mentioned above is
made out in the instant case. There was no violation of fundamental
rights or violation of the principles of natural justice nor was the order
issued in excess of jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter, this
writ petition merits dismissal solely on the ground of alternative
remedy.
Reserving the liberty of the writ petitioner to pursue its
appellate remedy as provided under the statute, this writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17408/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF RENEWAL OF MOU WAS EXECUTED
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.1-4/2013 (CPP-
II), ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION, NEW DELHI DATED 17.6.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 27.6.2013.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP NO.30039/2012 OF
MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 12.3.2013.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY CIRCULAR NO.BU/CPOP, CPP/CENTRES-
APPROVAL WITHDRAWN/2018 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.5.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REPLY ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF REPLY FILD BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
30.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.04/2013 OF
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM.
