Case laws · TaxKatha

GSTAT New Delhi2 Sept 2026

For revenue

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd

Additional ITC benefit under GST was required to be passed on by commensurate price reduction; as LIG/MIG flat prices were statutorily capped to direct costs, profiteering was to be confined to HIGflats, excluding post-OC/unsold units, without cross-buyer set-off GST: In anti-profiteering proceedings, amounts not passed on as commensurate price reduction under Section 171 were liable to be refunded with compensatory interest under Rule 133(3)(b); accordingly, respondent was directed to pay interest at 18% p.a. from respective dates of collection till actual refund, there being no special reason to deviate. GST: As part of anti-profiteering period extended beyond 1-1-2020, penalty under applicable provision was attracted; accordingly, penalty equal to 10% of profiteered amount was leviable, but stood waived if entire profiteered amount was passed on within 30 days from date of order, as prescribed by statutory proviso

GSTAT New Delhi2 Sept 2026

For revenue

DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd

Rajasthan High Court17 Aug 2026

For assessee

Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School v. Union of India

Where a school challenged levy and collection of GST on affiliation fees via circular and notice, and precedence established parity between school and college affiliations regarding GST applicability, levy on school affiliation fees was held unsustainable and both impugned circular and subsequent notice along with all consequential proceedings were to be quashed on the basis of parity with legal precedent

GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram14 Aug 2026

For assessee

M S Steels v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram

Where appellant transported TMT bars between own premises as internal stock transfer under same GSTIN without e-way bill, in absence of consideration and supply between distinct persons, movement did not amount to supply and no tax was payable, thus, penalty linked to tax was not leviable, and absence of e-way bill merely constituted document lapse, not impeaching transaction genuineness

Madras High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC) v. K.R.Subramanian

Where employee was penalized for stock shortage in course of employment and GST was levied on penalty, such penalty did not constitute supply under paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II as it arose from employer-employee relationship, not supplier-recipient relationship, hence GST on such penalty is not attracted

CGST S.7

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…

Karnataka High Court13 Aug 2026

For assessee

Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

Supreme Court21 Jul 2026

For assessee

Union of India v. Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry

SLP dismissed against order of high court that no GST is leviable on assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot with building, as such transfer of benefits arising from immovable property is not a 'supply'.'

GSTAT New Delhi17 Jul 2026

For revenue

DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-profiteering, DGAP v. Merit Magnum Construction (Formerly M/s Vimal Builders)

Mere filing of Occupancy Certificate application does not constitute project completion; completion occurs only on grant of Occupancy Certificate, and ITC availed till such grant must be considered for determining post-GST anti-profiteering liability. GST: Since sales made post-Occupancy Certificate are not taxable supplies and related ITC is inadmissible, anti-profiteering applies only up to date of Occupancy Certificate; accordingly, investigation should cover period upto Occupancy Certificate and revised computation based on CA-certified data was upheld. GST: In real estate projects, determination of anti-profiteering iamount by comparing pre-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio and post-GST ITC-to-purchase ratio up to Occupancy Certificate date and allocating per sq. ft. benefit to eligible buyers, reasonably quantifies additional ITC required to be passed on. GST: Where homebuyers are identifiable from project records, Rule 133(3)(b) requires refund of profiteered amount with 18% interest to each recipient; residuary deposit under Rule 133(3)(c) cannot be invoked merely because no complaint was made or buyers are temporarily unavailable. GST: Penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act is prospective from 01.01.2020 and, in the absence of express retrospective operation, cannot be imposed for anti- profiteering pertaining to periods prior thereto

AAAR West Bengal10 Jul 2026

For revenue

Indian Wire Products Company, In re

Supply of tobacco based hookah flavours as well as herbal (non-tobacco- based) hookah flavours through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant does not fall within ambit of paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to GST Acts merely because such supplies are made in conjunction with food, beverages and other restaurant facilities; consequently, such supplies are not classifiable as restaurant service under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) but are to be treated as supplies of goods and taxed in accordance with applicable classification and relevant rate notifications

Rajasthan High Court10 Jul 2026

For assessee

Surendera Group of Institutions v. Union of India

Where petitioner-college paid affiliation fees to university and demand for GST on such fees was raised, grant of affiliation being a statutory and regulatory function did not constitute supply, affiliation fees were not consideration for taxable activity and were exempt under Entry 66 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate), thus GST demand was unsustainable and refund was directed if collected

AAR Gujarat24 Jun 2026

For assessee

Pon Pure Chemical India (P.) Ltd., In re

Compensation recovered from transporters for transit loss beyond tolerance limit stipulated in contracts, being liquidated damages for breach of contract, was not consideration for any supply; in absence of any agreement to tolerate breach, such amounts were mere compensation and not liable to GST

Supreme Court23 Jun 2026

CG Tollway Ltd. v. Union of India

Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI granted assessee exclusive toll rights and site access under concession for highway construction with nominal fee and post-Commercial Operation Date (post-COD) premium, with consideration including non-monetary elements like reciprocal toll right, such arrangement constituted a taxable works contract service under Schedule II, and valuation rules prescribed for 'consideration not wholly in money' would apply; thus, GST demand with interest and penalty was valid. GST : Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI entered into a DBFOT concession agreement with assessee for construction of highway project and assessee engaged a sub-contractor for construction of highway project under a separate EPC contract while toll collection/asset transfer was governed under a a distinct contract with NHAI, supplies to sub-contractor and by assessee represented separate taxable events; so payment of GST by sub-contractorwould not preclude assessee’s supplies; plea of double taxation was not tenable. GST : Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI entered into a DBFOT concession agreement with assessee and assessee, as a concessionaire constructed road with exclusive toll rights as consideration, in view of fact that no monetary payment was received from NHAI, toll collections represented reciprocal or deferred consideration for construction; thus, construction service was taxable under Heading 9954 and did not qualify for GST exemption meant only for access-to-road service by way of toll under Heading 9967, so exemption claim failed.…

Madras High Court23 Jun 2026

For revenue

Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of gst Intelligence, Chennai

Where GST-registered contractor in Tamil Nadu executed a construction contract for Supreme Court building at Port Louis, Mauritius under Government of India grant and SCN was issued alleging supply linkage with India based on procurement and financial consolidation, writ to quash SCN was premature as alleged lack of jurisdiction was not patent but required factual examination; so writ appeal was to be dismissed

Every ruling, in plain sight.