AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated that the petitioner procures hardware required for the purposes of IT education in Government schools by floating competitive tenders and thereafter supplies the hardware to various schools on the basis of requirements and directives issued by the General Education Department. It is submitted that the entire funding of the petitioner is by the Government through the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), which is again a statutory body under the Government of Kerala. 2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of adjudication issued by the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Goods and Services Tax amounting to Rs.99,05,74,260/- for the period from July 2017 to March 2021 and interest thereon and imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,95,28,713/- on the petitioner principally on the premise that the petitioner is effecting a composite supply of goods and services to the schools and is therefore liable to pay Goods and Services Tax. 3. Sri. P.V. Dinesh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the instructions of Adv.V.A.Haritha, submits that the entire premise upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mutually irreconcilable. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the show cause notice, this Court had taken the view that the contentions taken by the petitioner are to be taken before the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that on an application of the same principle, the petitioner ought to avail alternate remedies against Ext. P1 and no ground has been made out for interference with Ext.P1 in the exercise of writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel has extensively referred to the findings in Ext.P1 to establish that each and every contention taken by the petitioner has been properly considered by the adjudicating authority before reaching any conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioner has no case that the remedy of appeal to the appellate authority is not an effective remedy or that any contention taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be considered by the appellate autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business; (aa) ..... (b) ....... (c) the activities specified in Schedule I , made or agreed to be made without a consideration;" (Emphasis is supplied) A reading of Section 7 makes it clear that in respect of transactions which do not fall under Schedule I, consideration is an essential ingredient to establish that there is either a supply of goods or services. There is nothing in Ext.P1 which would indicate that the petitioner had received any consideration from the Government, the KIIFB or the General Education Department as consideration for the supply of goods or services. The petitioner has only received grants to meet its day-to-day expenses including salary, allowances etc. Such payment cannot be deemed to be a consideration for the alleged services rendered or for goods supplied by the petitioner. The revenue has no case that the activity of the petitioner falls within Scheduled-I. 7. Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 was issued in the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (3) KLT 234 held as follows : - "The need for upholding the rule of law would also mandate that the High Court decide the matter in situations where the exercise of statutory power does not conform, inter alia, to the requirements of fairness, non - arbitrariness and reasonableness and therefore falls foul of the culture of justification that is seen as a necessary and essential feature of administrative decision making. (Akshay N. Patel v. RBI, 2021 KHC 6791 : 2022 (3) SCC 694 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6791 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1180). The said feature requires the decision of the administrative authority to demonstrate responsiveness, justification and demonstrated expertise. Responsiveness refers to the requirement that the reasons given by the decision maker must respond to the central issues and concerns raised by the parties by 'listening' rather than merely 'hearing' the parties. Justification refers to the principle that the exercise of public power must be justified, intelligible and transparent, not in the abstract, but to the individuals subject to it. Demonstrated expertise refers to the requirement of the decision maker establishing the reasonableness ....