Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1513/2022 on 30 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1513 OF 2022
30th JUNE, 2022
Between:
M/s Corbett Nature Reserve ...... Petitioner
and
Union of India and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the Union of India
: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned
counsel for respondent No. 2
: Mr. Vinod Kumar Nautiyal, learned
Deputy Advocate General with Mr.
Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief
Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondent No. 3
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Issue notice to the respondents.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing Counsel for
the Union of India, appears and accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No. 1.
2
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vinod Kumar Nautiyal, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned Brief
Holder, appears for the State of Uttarakhand and
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned
ruling / order passed by the learned Appellate Authority
for Advance Rulings dated 10.03.2022, as also the ruling
/ order of the Authority for Advance Rulings dated
28.09.2021.
3) The petitioner seeks a mandamus that the
Naturopathy Centre of the petitioner be treated as
eligible to get the benefit of entry No. 74 of exemption
Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated
28.06.2017, classified under SAC Heading 9993.
4) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
approached the Authority for Advance Ruling with a view
to seek the ruling to the effect that the Naturopathy
Centre run by the petitioner is exempt from payment of
GST under the aforesaid exemption Notification No.
12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. The case of the petitioner
was that the Naturopathy Centre run by it is a stand-
3
alone facility from the hotel business, though it is
situated within the hotel premises. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the Authority for Advance Ruling
proceeded to return a finding that this was a case of
supply of composite service and, consequently, the
petitioner has been denied the benefit of the aforesaid
exemption notification. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that this was not even the stand of
respondent-department before the Authority and,
therefore, the petitioner was taken by surprise upon
receiving the impugned order passed by the Authority
for Advance Ruling. He submits that the petitioner
specifically raised this ground in its appeal before the
Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority
has not considered the said aspect in its impugned
order.
5) The learned counsel for the respondents are
not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submission of
the petitioner. This is also evident from the reading of
the impugned orders passed by the respondent
Authorities.
6) In the light of the aforesaid, we quash and set
aside the order dated 10.03.2022, passed by the learned
4
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, and remand the
matter back to the Appellate Authority for
reconsideration of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
The Appellate Authority shall grant opportunity to the
petitioner to place its case before it, inter alia, on the
aspect that its services are not covered by the definition
of composite supply, and the said aspect shall be ruled
upon by the Appellate Authority.
7) The petition stands disposed of, in the
aforesaid terms. We make it clear that we have not
examined the merits of the said plea of the petitioner,
and the Appellate Authority shall be entitled to take its
own independent view in the matter.
Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2022)
also stands disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Dt: 30th JUNE, 2022
Negi
