Shri. Kishore Kumar Sidhapur Nagaraj vs. Smt. Preethi

Held

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's specific contention that his son is not studying in Miranda Educational Society. Consequently, the Court directed the lower Court to consider this submission and provide a finding on this specific issue during the final disposal of the case. The Court did not delve into the merits of the CGST and SGST collection issue or make any findings on it. The petition was disposed of with this liberty granted to the petitioner. The operative direction was to send back the lower Court records forthwith. The issue regarding the permissibility of CGST and SGST collection on minor's fees was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri. Kishore Kumar Sidhapur Nagaraj, filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.2216/2018. This appeal stemmed from an order dated 01.04.2016 by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-VI, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.90/2015. The petitioner's primary grievance concerns amounts collected under Annexures A6 and A7, which are under dispute. He contends that Annexure A6, a receipt, pertains to Miranda Educational Society and is not connected to his son's education. Furthermore, Annexure A7 shows CGST and SGST collected at 9%, which he argues is impermissible for a minor's fee as it is not considered a service under Section 66B and D of the Finance Act. He asserts these points were not considered by the lower courts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the receipt produced at Annexure A6, pertaining to Miranda Educational Society, is relevant to the petitioner's son's educational fees, and if not, what is the implication for the disputed amount? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the factual relevance of evidence and its legal consequence). 2. Whether the collection of CGST and SGST at 9% on a minor's fee, as evidenced by Annexure A7, is permissible under Section 66B and D of the Finance Act, considering it is not considered a service? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that Annexure A6 is irrelevant as it pertains to an educational society his son does not attend. He further contended that CGST and SGST at 9% were wrongly collected on his son's fees (Annexure A7) because, as per Section 66B and D of the Finance Act, such fees for a minor do not constitute a taxable service, and therefore, no service tax should have been levied. He claimed these crucial aspects were overlooked by the lower courts. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's counsel was absent, and no arguments were recorded on their behalf.