Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M. S. KARNIK, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ
Goa University, Through Its Registrar, Mr. Vishnu Sakharam Nadkarni – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Karnik, J.
1. This petition by the Goa University under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a show cause notice dated 05.08.2024 issued by respondent no.1 – Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Goa Commissionerate, proposing to demand GST on the educational activities of the petitioner University. During the pendency of the petition and after the matter was heard, the respondent no.1 heard the show cause notice and passed order in original under Section 74 of the GST Act dated 28.01.2025 which is also impugned pursuant to an amendment to this petition. The petitioner is also challenging the validity and legality of the Circular dated 17.02.2021 and paragraph 2 of the Circular dated 11.10.2021, both circulars issued by the respondent no.2 – Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The petitioner is also challenging the legality of paragraph 6(ii) of the Press Note dated 09.09.2024 issued to summarize recommendations made in the 54th meeting of the GST Council.
2. No doubt, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge order in original as is the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents. However, we are examining this p
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticism," or "disapproved" present in the descriptions provided. Therefore, based solely on this information, no case law appears to have been explicitly invalidated or discredited in subsequent treatment.
1. **Followed / Affirmed / Validated**:
<00100007385>: The case discusses the absolute right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The detailed reasoning suggests this is an authoritative statement of law, likely followed in subsequent jurisprudence.
<00100049769>: The case affirms that denial of access to higher education to backward classes and SC/ST is potentially dangerous and that provisions of Delhi Act 80 of 2007 are constitutionally valid. This indicates a reaffirmation of constitutional validity, likely followed.
<00100004847>: The case recognizes agricultural market committees as "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is a substantive legal classification likely upheld in subsequent cases.
<00100027012>: The case discusses the rights of private educational institutions regarding admissions, minority status, fee structures, and the setup of regulatory committees. The detailed points suggest this is an authoritative or guiding judgment in these areas, probably followed.
<00100051642>: The affirmation that a person who commits a wrong cannot benefit from it and the recognition of the right to education flowing from Article 21 are fundamental principles likely upheld and followed in subsequent jurisprudence.
2. **Not explicitly overruled or reversed**:
<00100006791>: The case clarifies that Sai Publications Fund cannot be considered a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. No indication of later disapproval.
<00100004847>: The classification of agricultural market committees as "industry" appears to be a settled legal point.
All cases appear to be treated as valid and authoritative based on the descriptions. However, the list does not include any explicit references to subsequent treatment, such as being overruled, criticized, or distinguished. As such, the treatment of all cases remains somewhat uncertain without further case law references or judicial history. The absence of explicit negative treatment suggests they are still regarded as good law, but this cannot be conclusively determined from the provided information alone.
**Source :** GOA UNIVERSITY THR. ITS REGISTRAR VISHNU SAKHARAM NADKARNI vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CGST GOA COMMISSIONERATE AND 2 ORS - Bombay Commissioner Of Sales Tax VS Sai Publication Fund - Supreme Court T. M. A. Pai Foundation VS State of Karnataka - Supreme Court Indian Medical Association VS Union of India - Supreme Court Gujarat University: State Of Gujarat: Principal, St. Xaviers College, Ranchi: Council For The Indian School Certificate Examination VS Krishna Rauganath Mudnolkar - Supreme Court Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore - Supreme Court Siddhu Matriculation Hr. Secondary School VS K. Shyam Sunder - Supreme Court LAXMI ENGINEERING WORKS VS P. S. G. INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE - Consumer Agricultural Produce Market Committee VS Ashok Harikuni - Supreme Court N. Nagendra Rao And Company VS State Of A. P. - Supreme Court P. A. Inamdars VS State Of Maharashtras - Supreme Court Radhasoami Satsang, Saomibagh, Agra VS Commissioner Of Income Tax - Supreme Court Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) VS Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority - Supreme Court Unni Krishnan J. P. VS State Of A. P. - Supreme Court Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. VS Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel - Supreme Court
Educational activities, including affiliation fees, are not commercial in nature and thus exempt from GST under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
Educational institutions' activities are statutory and not commercial, thus exempt from GST under relevant provisions.
The court held that affiliation fees collected by universities from affiliated colleges are taxable under GST, as they do not qualify as exempt educational services related to admission or examinatio....
Educational institutions are exempt from service tax for educational services under the Finance Act, 1994, but not for income from non-educational activities.
Point of Law : State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with ....
The purpose of “recognition” and “affiliation” is different. In the context of the N.C.T.E. Act, “affiliation” enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public exa....
Educational institutions must remit collected University Common Services Fees to the university as per statutory guidelines, and lack standing to challenge such demands.
State-imposed conditions for educational affiliation that contradict AICTE approval undermine institutional autonomy and are unconstitutional.
Educational services provided by institutions, including coaching fees, are exempt from GST according to relevant notifications and clarifications under the GST framework.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
