Topic
Scope, place and value of supply, zero-rating and intermediary services.
9 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where SEZ Unit's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54 read with Rule 89 and Section 16 was rejected on ground refund provisions applied only to suppliers to SEZ, Rule 89(1) did not restrict such claims to suppliers, and SEZ Unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized ITC in accordance with law
Madras High Court
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
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…
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route
Kerala High Court
Where assessment and tax demand for zero rated supply were finalized solely based on Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, which had been declared ultra vires Section 16 of IGST Act, such assessment and summary lacked legal foundation and could not be sustained, requiring quashing of impugned orders
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner, an information technology and IT-enabled services provider, was treated as exporter and granted refund of unutilized input tax credit for same services in periods before and after, rejection of refund for intervening period by classifying petitioner as intermediary without material distinction in services was illegal and arbitrary, so appellate order was set aside
Gujarat High Court
Where exporter omitted to mention IGST payment on rice export consignments in shipping bills due to inadvertence, but actual export and invoices were undisputed and refund claim was otherwise within Rule 96 criteria, entitlement to IGST refund could not be denied merely for omission in shipping bills, and refund was to be processed without requiring adjudication under Section 149 of Customs Act
Madras High Court
Refund of IGST on zero-rated exports could not be rejected solely on basis of Board Circular No. 37/2018, which was struck down as inconsistent with statutory provisions and Rules; rejection without examining claim under governing law was unsustainable, and matter was remanded for re-adjudication
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit's supplies and services for authorised operations were treated as not zero-rated due to non-production of Letter of Undertaking and SEZ Certificate, but required documents were offered for verification during proceedings, adjudication orders were set aside and matter remanded to enable submission and verification of such documents as per Section 16 of IGST Act