Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal1 September 2026

DH Maintenance Ltd., In re

For assessee

ORDER NO. 10/WBAAR/2026-27

The ruling in brief

Where applicant managing facility for commercial building recovered electricity charges at actuals as per distribution company bills based on consumption without markup or profit, such recovery can be deemed to be considered as recovery in the capacity of a pure agent, and electricity charges so collected should be excluded from value of supply and no GST was leviable on these recoveries

Provisions considered

Section 8, read with section 2(5), of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 33 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Gujarat High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Rule 28(2) prescribing 1% valuation for corporate guarantees was upheld, but the words “whichever is higher” were held arbitrary and unconstitutional; valuation must instead be based on actual consideration or the deemed 1% value, as applicable. GST: GST at deemed 1% valuation under Rule 28(2) could not be levied on corporate guarantees for periods before its insertion on 26-10-2023; such retrospective levy was harsh and unfair, though levy was permissible for periods thereafter, while guarantees to foreign subsidiaries were governed by Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST. GST: Corporate guarantees furnished by holding companies to banks for subsidiaries, even without consideration, constituted taxable supplies between related persons under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule I; subsidiaries were recipients, and GST levy on such guarantees was upheld. GST: Execution of corporate guarantees by holding companies for subsidiaries, though without consideration, constituted “business” under Section 2(17) and Schedule I, as activities incidental or ancillary to trade include safeguarding subsidiaries’ financial interests; volume, continuity or profit motive was immaterial. GST: Corporate guarantees were not “actionable claims” excluded by Schedule III, as a guarantor’s liability is contingent and secondary, unlike a direct right to debt; hence, corporate guarantees remained taxable supplies under the GST provisions. GST: Execution of a corporate guarantee secured by a share pledge constituted a taxable supply, as the pledge merely secured performance of the guarantee…

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Pushpendra Kumar Meena

Where assessee-bank was taxed on turnover comprising amounts received as interest on deposits, loans or advances and claimed exemption under Notification 12/2017-CT(R), Entry 27, since such interest-based consideration is specifically exempted except for credit card interest, demand for GST with interest and penalty on this component was not sustainable in law. GST: Where assessee-bank claimed exemption for Rs. 3.52 crores as interest-related adjustments attributable to other States during relevant period, but failed to submit borrower-wise or State-wise supporting documents and only provided a consolidated audit report and CA certificate lacking specific findings, exemption claim was denied since evidentiary burden was not discharged and adverse inference was warranted

CGST S.11

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Boilla Venkataramana Reddy v. Shivenari Canteen Services

Where outsourced caterer supplied food to in-patients within a hospital under contract, and only one supply, namely food, was made to hospital and not as part of composite healthcare supply, GST was leviable on such supply, as composite supply test failed and CBIC Circular supporting exemption applied only to supplies directly by healthcare provider and not outsourced caterer GST: Where caterer did not pay tax on in-patient food supplies based on an incorrect understanding of a Board Circular and no deliberate non-payment was established, invocation of section 74 was unsustainable, and dropping of penalty further negated mala fide intent, thus proceedings were to be treated under section 73 with proper re-determination of tax, interest and penalties GST: Where caterer supplied food to in-patients as per agreement with invoices showing no separate GST tax and department did not allege collection of tax above invoice value, invoice value was to be treated inclusive of tax, requiring application of cum-tax valuation under Rule 35, and tax liability was to be recomputed accordingly, ensuring no excess collection beyond statutory due

Related rulings

Gujarat High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Pushpendra Kumar Meena

CGST S.11

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

DH Maintenance Ltd., In re

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

DH Maintenance Ltd., In re

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Pushpendra Kumar Meena

Boilla Venkataramana Reddy v. Shivenari Canteen Services

Read the full analysis