High Court of Karnataka
Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner
For assessee
WRIT PETITION NO. 24040 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
High Court of Karnataka
WRIT PETITION NO. 24040 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
Where property acquired by compulsory acquisition for highway widening included land with attached structure and compensation was awarded, deduction of GST from compensation was unwarranted since such expropriation did not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST scheme and no statutory basis existed for GST levy, thus GST deduction was ultra vires and liable for refund
Section 9, read with section 7, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 366(12A) of Constitution of India, 1950 - Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
GSTAT Hyderabad
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
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where petitioner-taxi union was permitted to operate on public land under temporary allotment and rental terms, respondents could not demand GST on rentals for period prior to 08.07.2017 since GST came into force only thereafter, and petitioner was liable for dues with GST only for period commencing from 08.07.2017
Calcutta High Court
Where electrical line repair and maintenance services had been completed in 2015 before introduction of GST, subsequent approval and billing in 2019 could not alter date of supply or bring completed services within GST regime, consequently payment withheld for want of GST registration was directed to be released with interest after deducting tax, if any, applicable under pre-GST regime