IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act limits the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving factual disputes and claims for tax refunds.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel for the GST.

2. These three writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order, as the controversy is identical in nature and between the same parties.

3. The challenge made in these proceedings are show cause notices issued to the petitioners. Such show cause notices were issued directing the petitioners to show cause as to why the claim of refund made by the petitioners on the ground of exemption of GST available relating to health care services, shall not be rejected. The further challenges are the orders of rejection of claim of refund on the ground that even without charging the GST on the medicines and the consumable bills by the petitioners, the rate of medicines supplied to the in-house-patients was at the market price and therefore GST was included and the burden of tax has been shifted to the consumer. The impugned show cause notices and the impugned orders relatable to each of the writ petitions are recorded in a tabular form below:

4. The petitioner company own a hospital, which is engaged in treatment of various illness and ailment. According to the petitioner, it offers health care services.

5. The brief facts leading to issuance of show cause notice can be recorded as follows:

I. It is the case of the petitioner that in course of treatment, after admission in the hospital, the in-house-patient are provided a comprehensive treatment, which includes rooms, nursing care, medicines, consumable, implants etc.

II. The pharmacy department of the petitioners’ company treated this transferred as taxable supply of goods to the in-house-patients department and calculated output tax on transaction value of the transfers of the inputs, namely, medicines and consumable and such other items to the in-house-patients department without issuance of any tax invoice of the said goods. According to the petitioners, the said output tax so calculated was paid by declaring this transaction in the same way as pharmacy sales.

III. It is further claim of the petitioners that the said goods were not supplied to the recipients i.e. the patients but were rather used for providing treatment to the patients for which, consideration from patients is received is in nature of health care services and therefore, such health care service is exempted in terms of entry SL No. 74(a) of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

IV. It is the further claim of the petitioners that the petitioners do not charged any GST to the in-house-patients/ recipients. The tax paid on such internal transfer to the in-house-patients department was not liable to be paid but was paid in excess by mistake due to ignorance, lack of clarity of provision of law. However, on proper legal advice, the petitioners could know that the services provided by the petitioners’ hospital to the in-house patients was a composite supply of health services and was exempted from payment of GST. Accordingly, the petitioners took steps for filing of application for refund of the said taxes paid by the petitioners under Section 54 of the CGST Act/ SGST Act read with Rule 89 of the