Gujarat High Court
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
3 rulings found
Gujarat High Court
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…
Allahabad High Court
Where GST-registered person's registration was cancelled by a non-speaking order with no reasons or recorded satisfaction, such cancellation violated Article 14 and principles of natural justice and was unsustainable, therefore cancellation and consequential appellate order were quashed and matter was revived for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner
Karnataka High Court
Where pan masala manufacturers using pouch machines were subjected to a monthly machine-wise cess based on maximum rated capacity under a single slab up to 500 pouches per minute, and abatement was restricted to stoppages exceeding fifteen days, such levy disregarded actual production, ignored genuine shorter shutdowns, created arbitrary classifications and was declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14. GST: Where pan masala manufacturers challenged legislative competence of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 for levying cess on machines/processes, since taxable event was possession or operation of machines and not supply of goods or services, Parliament had power under Article 246(1) and Entry 97 List I to impose such cess, but manner of execution violated Article 14, rendering Act and Rules void