Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.TH, J
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18624 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.LATHA ANAND, SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR, SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL), SHRI.SIDHARTH P.S., SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
For the Respondents: SRI.P.T.DINESH, SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR
The advance ruling authority must consider applications on merits unless there are legal grounds to refuse based on pending matters.
Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 - Section 73 and Section 98 - Writ petition challenging the refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the advance ruling authority - The petitioner obtained registration under the GST Act and sought a ruling regarding taxability of income received from offering auctions and services - The authority's refusal to consider merits of the application violates procedural fairness, requiring reconsideration - The court quashes the refusal and mandates a review on merits. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction of Advance Ruling Authority - Must exercise jurisdiction unless a matter is pending or has been decided - Misinterpretation of the status of prior orders negates authority’s duty to rule on pending issues. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an autonomous body established under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, filed a writ petition against the refusal of the 3rd respondent to consider their request for an advance ruling on the applicability of GST to various income streams, following an investigation under Section 73 of the GST Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found merits in the petitioner's claim, stating that the refusal was improper as it did not consider the merits nor had any other proceedings pending that justified avoiding jurisdiction under Section 98 of the GST Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the advance ruling authority had proper grounds to refuse consideration of the petitioner's application based on prior orders that were not fully adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority must reconsider the application on its merits due to procedural lapses in the refusal to exercise its jurisdiction, underscoring the necessity of fair procedural compliance in administrative decisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed, Ext.P5 quashed, matter remanded for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges jurisdiction denial (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions raised regarding gst application (Para 3) |
| 3. court's rationale for jurisdiction enforcement (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. dismissal of procedural unmeritorious refusals (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Travancore Devaswom Board, and this writ petition is submitted by the petitioner Board, being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent, in which the 3rd respondent refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested upon it under Section 98 of the CGST Act.
2. The petitioner Board obtained registration under the CGST Act as per Ext.P1, with effect from 27.02.2018. According to the petitioner, such a registration was necessitated in view of the fact that, the petitioner usually enters into contracts with various contractors for construction activities related to the Board. In respect of the certain income received by the petitioner Board, proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act were initiated against the petitioner, by issuing a notice in this regard, in which the income certain heads were highlighted for the purpose of taxation. However, the petitioner discharged the said liability without challenging the same, and taking note of the fact that, the petitioner had remitted the tax referred to in the notice issued under of the Act, the proceedings were closed as per Ext.P3, without considering the liability of the petitioner to pay the tax for the aforesaid income, on merits. Ext P3 was the said order, in which the income which was the subject matter of investigation were under the following heads;
“i) Income from lease or rental of properties: Income from lease or rental of Shops, Land, Parking Area, Pilgrim Shelters, Comfort Stations, Kalyanamandapams etc. in the precincts of temples owned or managed by the Board, for rent beyond the exemption limits stipulated under Notification No. 12/2017- CT(R) (supra) i.e. Rs. 10000/ or more per day/per month, as the case may be, and Mobile Tower Rent;
ii) Income from transfer of rights: Income from temporary transfer of various rights in the temple precincts viz. Pulppaya supply, Sale of various items, Collection of coconut ete. to third parties, through auctions, who in turn supply such goods and services and collect consideration from the pilgrims, collect materials etc. per auction terms.
iii) Income from advertisement space in print media: Income from sale of advertisement space in print media viz. Devaswom publications;
iv) Income from Form Sales: Income from sale of printed forms to the temple advisory committee aspirants;
v) Income from appointment of purohits: Fees collected from Purohits for appointing them to perform special rituals like 'Vavubali', and the Purohits in turn perform rituals for the believers and receives Dakshina from them; and
vi) Other Miscellaneous Supplies: Sales proceeds from stock & materials, wooden logs & building materials, hire of elephants and elephant paraphernalia etc.
And also not discharging reverse charge liability on expenses under the head
vii) Legal Charges: Charges paid to individual advocate(s) including senior advocate(s) for their services by way of representational services or to firm(s) of advocates for their services by way legal services.”
3. Subsequently, as the petitioner had some doubts with respect to the taxability in respect of the income received by the petitioner in respect of certain transactions, Ext.P4 application was submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, seeking an advance ruling as contemplated under Section 98 of the CGST Act.
The contentions raised in Ext.P4 are as follows:
i) Auction process of rice from offerings: Offerings of rice from devotees would be accumulated in the temple premises, especially in Sabarimala, is a serious issue, which makes difficulties for the devotees for further offering and also raises hygiene problems. The rice sold on a daily auction process at temples like Sabarimala is impractical.
