Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And Others

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court found that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by its own previous decisions in Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 723 of 2024. Consequently, the Court granted the relief sought by the Petitioner in terms of prayer clauses 'A' and 'B'. Prayer clause 'A' sought the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ to set aside/quash the show cause notice dated 20-08-2026. Prayer clause 'B' sought the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ and/or direction to stay the proceedings of the show cause notice dated 28-08-2026, which proposed to demand tax on affiliation fees. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, the relief granted in that precedent should be extended to the present case. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, filed two writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued by Respondent No. 3, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The notices, dated 20-08-2026 and 28-08-2026, proposed to demand GST on affiliation fees. The core of the dispute revolves around the taxability of these affiliation fees. The Petitioner sought to quash the show cause notices and stay the proceedings initiated by them. The matter was heard by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notices issued by Respondent No. 3, proposing to demand GST on affiliation fees, are liable to be set aside or quashed, and whether the proceedings initiated by these notices should be stayed? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the applicability of GST provisions to affiliation fees). Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by previous decisions of the High Court, specifically Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025 (Principal Seat) and Writ Petition No. 723 of 2024 (Goa Bench). They relied on these precedents to argue for the quashing of the notices and the stay of proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondents (Union of India and the State) in opposition to the Petitioner's contentions.