JUDGMENT : The petitioners in these cases are Co-operative Societies. They have approached this Court challenging summons issued to them under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Acts except in W.P(C)No.28242/2024 where Ext.P1 notice has been produced. It is the case of the petitioners that the principle of mutuality applies and at least till 31.12.2021 they were immune from the levy of GST on account of the application of the principle of mutuality. Reference is in this regard is also made to the judgment of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India and others [Judgment dated 23.07.2024 in W.P(C)No.23853 of 2023]. They pray that a declaration be granted that they are not liable to the levy of G.S.T. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners in these cases are not entitled to any relief. It is submitted that in the Indian Medical Association ( supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that there is no principle of mutuality in respect of the services offered by the Indian Medical Association to its members. It is submitted that similarly, the services offered by the petitioner societies to its members cannot be said to be immune from the liability to GST on account of the principle of mutuality. It is submitted that the petitioners have only been issued with summons/notice and not even a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to appear before the competent authority and substantiate that they are not liable to GST in case they have such a case. It is submitted that as in the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.19231 of 2023 (Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.28431 of 2024), the competent authority can be directed to consider the maintainability of summons/notice after adverting to the reply, if any, submitted by the petitioners and after affording to the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, I am of the opinion that since only a summons/notice has been issued to the petitioners, it is premature for the petitioners to challenge the same by approaching this Court by filing a writ petition. If the petitioners have a case that services to its members are not liable to GST, it is for the petitioners to establish the same before the authorities. Any contention of the petitioners on the basis of the findings of this Court in Indian Medical Association (supra) can also be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with the law. In the light of the above, these writ petitions will stand disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to consider the claim, if any, of the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the summons/notice issued to them after adverting to any reply that may be filed by the petitioners and affording to them an opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such time as orders are passed by the competent authority, further proceedings pursuant to the summons issued to the petitioners shall remain suspended. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ contention and it will be open to the competent authority to decide the matter, in accordance with the law.