© All copyright with All India Federation of Tax Practitioners, Mumbai Price : ` 725 Edition : 2026 Published by : Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd. Sales & Marketing : 59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005 India Phone : +91-11-45562222 Website : www.taxmann.com E-mail : sales@taxmann.com Mumbai : 35, Bodke Building, M.G. Road, Opp. Railway Station, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400 080 Mob. +91-9322247686, 9619668669, 7045453844/45/51 E-mail : sales.mumbai@taxmann.com Regd. Office : 21/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026 India Printed at : Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd. 44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway, Rohtak Road Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) India E-mail : sales@tanprints.com Disclaimer Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the AIFTP or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications. No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means [graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information retrieval systems] or reproduced on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, etc., without the written permission of the AIFTP. Breach of this condition is liable for legal action. For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher’s liability is limited to replacement within seven days of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser. All disputes are subject to Mumbai jurisdiction only.
2>=C4=CB
PAGE
Message from Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal, Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad President Message Chairperson’s message (Indirect Taxation Publication Committee) About All-India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) Indirect Tax Publication Committee About the Authors
I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-10 I-11
APEX COURT & HIGH COURT GST CASE LAWS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROFESSIONALS A. Parallel Proceedings Armour Security (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner 1. &*67 'HOKL ² 6XSUHPH &RXUW B. Supply 2. Principle of Mutuality Indian Medical Association Versus Union of India – Kerala High Court Compensation received towards acquisition of 3. land Smt. Asha R, Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement-17), Bangalore – Karnataka High Court Assignment of leasehold rights of the plot of 4. ODQG DOORWWHG E\ *,'& Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court 5. Sale of partially constructed building Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Karnataka High Court
I-15
1 1 4 4 4 6 6
8 8 10 10
Contents PAGE
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Activities of a Regulatory authority are not services amenable to GST Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Versus $VVWW '**67, 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW Activities of a University are not services amenable to GST Goa University Versus Joint Commissioner of Central Tax - Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) Bengaluru North University Versus Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore Karnataka High Court Whether the printing of photo books using customer-provided digital content is a composite supply constituting a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’? Stark Photo Book versus The Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) Thiruvananthapuram – Kerala High Court Issue of prepaid vouchers – whether liable to GST? Premier Sales Promotion Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Karnataka High Court Gift vouchers taxability Tvl. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. Versus Union of India – Madras High Court
12 12 14 14 15
18
18
19 19 20 20
C. Levy
21
12.
21 21
13.
14.
Rate of tax on job-work services 0 V (VYHHDDU 'LVWLOOHULHV 3ULYDWH /LPLWHG 9HUVXV Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Tirupati – II Circle - Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch between GSTR 3B and Form 26AS M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor Versus State of UP – Allahabad High Court Levy of GST on re-import of aircraft sent out of India for servicing
I-16
22 22 23
Contents PAGE
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. Versus Pr. Comm. of FXVWRPV ² 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW
23
D. Exemption
25
15.
Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish Versus Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling – Karnataka High Court Scope of exemption to educational institution Educational Initiatives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - Gujarat High Court Scope of exemption to institutions undertaking entrance exams
25
National Board of Examination in Medical 6FLHQFHV 9HUVXV 82, 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW
28
Exemption from GST on services to local authority - Whether recipient qualifies as local authority?
29
Nepra Resources Management (P.) Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat – Gujarat High Court
29
Exemption from GST on private hostel facility
30
Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel Versus Union of India – Madras High Court
30
Exemption on Annuity received in lieu of Toll
31
'3- %LGDU &KLQFKROL $QQXLW\ 5RDG 3URMHFW (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India - Karnataka High Court
31
Exemption on services of chilling and packing of raw milk
32
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Versus Union of India - Gujarat High Court
32
Whether charges collected as part of the supply of electricity is exempt from GST?
33
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Union of India – Rajasthan High Court
33
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
I-17
25
27 27 28
Contents PAGE
E. Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST)
34
23.
GST on RCM on freight included in the CIF value of imports - Ocean freight
34
Union of India Versus Mohit Minerals – Supreme Court
34
Export of services versus intermediary services
35
Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India – Karnataka High Court
35
Whether BPO Services to customers tantamount to intermediary
37
Genpact India (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India 3XQMDE +DU\DQD +LJK &RXUW
37
Export of services
38
Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court
38
Export of services versus intermediary services
39
Ernst And Young Ltd. Versus Additional &RPPLVVLRQHU &*67 $SSHDO ,, 'HOKL +LJK Court
39
Intermediary services - Place of Supply
41
'KDUPHQGUD 0 -DQL 9HUVXV 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD Bombay High Court
41
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
F. Valuation
42
29.
Arbitrariness of deeming fiction of deduction of land in construction contracts
42
Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court
42
'LVFRXQW YHUVXV VXEVLG\
44
Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Madras High Court
44
30.
G. Classification
46
31.
46
Classification of flavoured milk
I-18
Contents PAGE
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Madras High Court
46
H. Input Tax Credit
47
32.
Input Tax Credit for construction immovable property
47
Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Versus M/S Safari Retreats Private Ltd. – Supreme Court
47
Input Tax Credit on mobile towers
49
Bharti Airtel Ltd. Versus Comm., CGST Appeals-1, 'HOKL ² 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW
49
Input tax credit on cancellation of registration with retrospective effect
50
Himalaya Communication Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - Himachal Pradesh High Court
50
'HQLDO RI LQSXW WD[ FUHGLW GXH WR QRQ SD\PHQW of tax by the supplier
51
Trendships Online Service Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner Commercial Taxes - Allahabad High Court Time limit for claiming input tax credit Thirumalakonda Plywoods Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax – Andhra Pradesh High Court Input tax credit of IGST availed as CGST and SGST Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex Versus Union of India – Kerala High Court Inter-state transfer of ITC upon amalgamation Umicore Autocat India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court Blocking of input tax credit
51
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
I-19
53 53
55 55 57 57 58
Contents PAGE
40.
41.
42.
Kings Security Guard Services (P.) Ltd. Versus 'HSXW\ 'LUHFWRU 'LUHFWRUDWH *HQHUDO RI *67 ,QWHOOLJHQFH '=8 ² 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW Blocking of input tax credit K9 Enterprises Versus State of Karnataka Karnataka High Court Blocking of input tax credit Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Meerut 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW Blocking of input tax credit Basanta Kumar Shaw Versus Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Commercial Taxes And State Tax – Calcutta High Court
58
60 60 64 64
65 65
I. Cancellation of Registration
66
43.
66
44.
Cancellation of GST registration solely on the grounds of filing nil returns Kali Shankar Enterprises Versus Additional Commissioner – Andhra Pradesh High Court Cancellation of registration that firm in not functional Cylos Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh
66 68 68
J. Returns
68
45.
68 68
46.
47.
Rectification of return Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Versus Aberdare Technologies Private Limited – Supreme Court Rectification of the error of wrong reporting of GSTIN in the GSTR-1 M/s. Wipro Limited India Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes Bengaluru – Karnataka High Court Correction of bona fide errors while reporting in GST returns
I-20
69 69
70
Contents PAGE
Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court K. Refund
70
Refund Valuation — FOB Value Versus Net Realisation AU Finja Jewels Versus Assistant Commissioner, 'LY 9 &*67 &; 1DYL 0XPEDL $QU ² Bombay High Court Input services credit eligibility for refund on inverted duty structure 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD 2UV 9HUVXV 9.& )RRWVWHSV India Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court 'HQLDO RI UHIXQG IRU 1RQ )XUQLVKLQJ RI ),5& when CA Certificate is submitted Kuehne Plus Nagel Private Limited Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court Refund of unutilised compensation cess on inputs used for export of goods Patson Papers Private Limited Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court Refund on account of discontinuation/closure of the registered unit Union of India Versus SICPA India Private Limited – Sikkim High Court 'HWHUPLQDWLRQ RI 9DOXH RI ([SRUW *RRGV IRU Refund under GST Tonbo Imaging India (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India – Karnataka High Court 6(= ² UHIXQG RI XQXWLOLVHG LQSXW WD[ FUHGLW Britannia Industries Limited Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court Impact of omission of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 on the pending cases M/s. Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court Interest on refund of IGST paid on ocean freight
71
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
I-21
71
71
72 72 73 73 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 77 79 79 80
Contents PAGE
57.
58.
59.
60.
West India Continental Oils Fats Private Limited Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court Interest on IGST refund on export Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court Interest on export of services- 60 days from the date of application G.S. Industries Versus Commissioner of Central 7D[ DQG *67 'HOKL :HVW
80
Interest on delay of refund of exports – whether from date of refund application or appellate order date
83
Altisource Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India - Bombay High Court
83
Interest on refund
84
6XDVKLVK 'LDPRQG /WG YHUVXV 7KH 8QLRQ RI India and Ors. – Bombay High Court
84
81 81 82 82
L. Audit
85
61.
Time limit to complete audit
85
0 6 5DMLYH DQG &RPSDQ\ 9HUVXV 7KH 'HSXW\ Commissioner (Audit) – Kerala High Court
85
Audit after cancellation of registration
86
Tvl. Raja Stores Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Madras High Court
86
Audit after cancellation of registration
88
LJ-Victoria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court
88
62.
63.
M. Notice/Orders
89
64.
Time to reply to Notice
89
6KHHWDO 'LOLS -DLQ 9HUVXV 7KH 6WDWH RI Maharashtra – Bombay High Court
89
I-22
Contents PAGE
65.
Limitation period to issue show cause notice/ orders
90
The Cotton Corporation of India Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC) Vijayawada State of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India Andhra Pradesh High Court
90
66.
Rishi Enterprises Versus Additional &RPPLVVLRQHU &HQWUDO 7D[ 'HOKL 1RUWK ² 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW
91
67.
Bunching of show cause notice for multiple years
93
Titan Company Ltd. Versus The Joint &RPPLVVLRQHU RI *67 &HQWUDO ([FLVH ² 0DGUDV High Court Bunching of show cause notice for multiple years M/S. Veremax Technologie Services Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru – Karnataka High Court Bunching of show cause notice for multiple years Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta Versus Additional Commissioner, Adjudication '**67, &*67 'HOKL 1RUWK 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW Validity of notice issued via WhatsApp Mathai M.V. Versus The Senior Enforcement Officer – Kerala High Court 'HPDQG RUGHU H[FHHGLQJ DPRXQW VSHFLILHG LQ SCN M/s R.T.S. Electricals And Civil India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) Lko. – Allahabad High Court Legal validity of Notifications issued for extending the limitation period for issuing orders under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for FYs 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 Tata Play Ltd. Versus Union of India – Madras High Court
93
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
I-23
94 94
94 94
96 96 97 97
98
98
Contents PAGE
73.
'HPDQG SURFHHGLQJV ZRXOG EH WLPH EDUUHG LI not initiated within the time limits Provident Housing Ltd. Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) An unsigned order is no order in eyes of law Fortune Service Versus Union of India - High Court of Kerala
100
N. Opportunity of hearing mandatory under section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017
103
75.
103
74.
76.
77. 78.
*UD]LDQR 7UDVPLVVLRQL ,QGLD 3YW /WG 9HUVXV State of Gujarat – Gujarat High Court Technosys Security System Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Indore – Madhya Pradesh High Court Future Consumer Limited Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh – Madhya Pradesh High Court Same date for reply and hearing Kahna Bartan Bhandar Versus State of U.P. Allahabad High Court
100 101 101
104
105 105 105
O. Payment under protest
106
79.
106
Payment under protest - whether leads to admission of liability? Shyama Power India Ltd. Versus State of H.P. - Himachal Pradesh High Court
106
P. Recovery
107
80.
107 107
81.
5HIXQG RI FRHUFHG UHFRYHU\ ² '5& SD\PHQWV ,QWHOOLJHQFH 2IILFHU '**, %HQJDOXUX $QU Versus M/s Kesar Color Chem Industries – Karnataka High Court Powers of the GST officers to provisionally attach property of the assessee Radha Krishan Industries Versus State of Himachal Pradesh – Supreme Court
I-24
108 108
Contents PAGE
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Recovery within 4 days of passing the order of the appellate authority M/s S.A.B. Engg. Works Versus State of U.P. - Allahabad High Court Provisional attachment of cash credit accountwhether permissible Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of State Tax – Bombay High Court Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) power to provisionally attach bank account Vikas Enterprises Versus Commissioner of &HQWUDO 7D[ *67 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW ,QLWLDWLRQ RI SURFHHGLQJV XQGHU &KDSWHU ;,, ;,9 RU ;9 i.e., under Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74) is mandatory to invoke Section 83 Principal Commissioner of Central Tax GST Commissionerate Versus Narasimhan Engineering Contractors (P.) Ltd. – Karnataka High Court Recovery from deceased person Sunil Thampy Nair Versus State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court
88.
89.
109 110 110 111 111 112
112
114 114 115
Q. Appellate Authority 87.
109
Pre-deposit for filing appeal using electronic credit ledger Oasis Realty Versus Union of India – Bombay High Court Adjustment of voluntary deposit made against pre-deposit Vinod Metal Versus State of Maharashtra– Bombay High Court Power of Appellate Authority to adjudicate on issues not before the original authority Radiant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint &RPPLVVLRQHU &*67 DQG &; $SSHDO , ² Calcutta High Court
I-25
115 115 116 116 117 117
Contents PAGE
90.
Powers to remand by Appellate Authority are expressly barred under 107(11) of the CGST Act M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-5) - High Court of Karnataka
118 118
R. Revision under Section 108 - Scope
119
91.
HCC VCCL Joint Venture Versus Union of India 'HOKL +LJK &RXUW
119
W.P. (C) No. 10940 of 2023, date 05.11.2024 [SLP against the said decision was dismissed RQ LQ 6/3 1R 6/3 &LYLO 'LDU\ No. 24660 of 2025]
119
S. Offences and Penalties
120
92.
120
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
Penalty proceedings under Section 122 proceedings under Section 74 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Versus Union of India – Allahabad High Court 'HWHQWLRQ DQG VHL]XUH RI JRRGV ZKHQ QR LQWHQW to evade tax Sleevco Traders Versus Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal) Fifth Commercial Tax – Allahabad High court 'HWHQWLRQ DQG VHL]XUH RI JRRGV DQG FRQYH\DQFH Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat – Gujarat High Court 'HWHQWLRQ RI JRRGV QRW DFFRPSDQLHG ZLWK FUHGLW note Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer, Salem – Madras High Court Whether authorities bound to issue order u/s 129(3) ASP Traders Versus State of Uttar Pradesh – Supreme Court Excess stock - Proceedings under Section 73/74 or under Section 130
I-26
120 122 122
124 124 126 126 127 127 128
Contents PAGE
0DD $PLOD &RDO 'HSRW 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 8WWDU Pradesh – Allahabad High Court T. Rectification of errors
128
98.
Rectification of error on account of duplication of proceedings :LQWHU :RRG 'HVLJQHUV &RQWUDFWRUV ,QGLD Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State Tax Officer – Kerala High Court 99. Rectification under Section 161 is not a backdoor for review or re-adjudication 6DMDO .XPDU 'DV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI :HVW %HQJDO – Calcutta High Court U. Service of decision, orders, notice etc.
129
100. Tvl. Evershine Industries Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Harbour Assessment Circle, Tamil Nadu – Madras High Court 101. Koduvayur Constructions Versus Assistant Commissioner – Kerala High Court 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392/[2023] 153 taxmann.com 333 (Kar.) 102. M/s Lalaram Thekedar Versus Union of India – Allahabad High Court 103. Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited 9HUVXV 7KH 'HSXW\ &RPPLVVLRQHU *67 (Appeals) Tirunelveli – Madras High Court 104. 0DWKXU 3RO\PHUV 9HUVXV 82, 'HOKL &RXUW 105. Tvl. Fashion Falls Fabrics Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Tiruppur Lakshmi Nagar Assessment Circle – Madras High Court V. GST Act and RTI Act
132
106. Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare Versus The State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court W. Search & Seizure
138
107. $OL 7UDGLQJ DQG $QU 0' /XNPDQXGGLQ 9HUVXV The State of Assam – Gauhati High Court
139
I-27
129
129
131 131 132
133 133 134 135
136 137
138
139
Contents PAGE
108. M/S Balaji Enterprises Versus The Principal &RPPLVVLRQHU '**, 0HHUXW =RQDO 8QLW ² 'HOKL High Court 109. Shabu George Versus State Tax Officer (IB) Kerala High Court
141
X. Adjudication and recovery of GST on company under liquidation or under reconstruction under IBC provisions
142
110. Hitachi Nest Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru – Karnataka High Court 111. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. Versus Assistant &RPPLVVLRQHU ',9 ,,, &*67 & (; 1DYL 0XPEDL 2UV ² %RPED\ +LJK &RXUW 112. Sintex - Bapl Limited Versus State of Gujarat 2UV *XMDUDW +LJK &RXUW
143
142
144
145
Y. Arrest, Prosecution and Bail
148
113. Radhika Agarwal Versus Union of India – Supreme Court 114. Varun Goyal Versus The State of Assam Gauhati High Court 115. Gaurav Agarwal Versus Union of India – Gauhati High Court Table of Cases Subject Index
148
I-28
149 150 153 167
0?4G 2>DAC 7867 2>DAC 6BC 20B4 ;0FB 4BB4=C80; 5>A C0G ?A>54BB8>=0;B
A. Parallel Proceedings 1. Armour Security (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner CGST, Delhi – Supreme Court Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6092 of 2025 date 14.08.2025 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700 Issue: The following issues were for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 1.
Whether issuance of summons can be regarded as “initiation of proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act?
2.
Whether “subject matter” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act includes all matters dealt with in summons under the Act?
3.
What is the purport of an “Order” under Section 6(2)(a) of the CGST Act?
Ruling: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: A.
Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act and the equivalent State enactments bars the “initiation of any proceedings” on the “same subject matter”.
B.
Any action arising from the audit of accounts or detailed scrutiny of returns must be initiated by the tax administration to which the taxpayer is assigned.
C.
Intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by any one of the Central or the State tax administrations despite the taxpayer having been assigned to the other administration.
1
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
D.
Parallel proceedings should not be initiated by other tax administration when one of the tax administrations has already initiated intelligence-based enforcement action.
E.
All actions that are initiated as a measure for probing an inquiry or gathering of evidence or information do not constitute “proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
F.
The expression “initiation of any proceedings” occurring in Section 6(2)(b) refers to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings by way of issuance of a show cause notice, and does not encompass the issuance of summons, or the conduct of any search, or seizure etc.
G.
The expression “subject matter” refers to any tax liability, deficiency, or obligation arising from any particular contravention which the Department seeks to assess or recover.
H.
Where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted.
I.
Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, the same would not constitute a “same subject matter” even if the tax liability, deficiency, or obligation is same or similar, and the bar under Section 6(2)(b) would not be attracted.
J.
The twofold test for determining whether a subject matter is “same” entails, first, determining if an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued following guidelines to be followed in cases where, after the commencement of an inquiry or investigation by one authority, another inquiry or investigation on the same subject matter is initiated by a different authority.
2
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
a.
Where a summons or a show cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. We say, so because, mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated.
b.
Where an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject of an inquiry or investigation by another authority, the assessee shall forthwith inform, in writing, the authority that has initiated the subsequent inquiry or investigation.
c.
Upon receipt of such intimation from the assessee, the respective tax authorities shall communicate with each other to verify the veracity of the assessee’s claim. We say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilization of the Department’s time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to benefit of all.
d.
If the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities pertain to different “subject matters”, an intimation to this effect, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject matters, shall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxable person.
e.
The taxing authorities are well within their rights to conduct an inquiry or investigation until it is ascertained that both authorities are examining the identical liability to be discharged, the same contravention alleged, or the issuance of a show cause notice. Any show cause notice issued in respect of a liability already covered by an existing show cause notice shall be quashed.
f.
However, if the Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be finds that the matter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subject of inquiry
3
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
or investigation by another authority, both authorities shall decide inter se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. In such a scenario the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designated to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion. We say, so because, the taxable person except for being afforded the statutory protection from duplication of proceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter. g.
However, where the authorities are unable to reach a decision as to which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation, then in such circumstances, the authority that first initiated the inquiry or investigation shall be empowered to carry it to its logical conclusion, and the courts in such a case would be competent to pass an order for transferring the inquiry or investigation to that authority.
h.
If it is found that the authorities are not complying with these aforementioned guidelines, it shall be open to the taxable person to file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
i.
At the same time, taxable persons shall ensure complete cooperation with the authorities. It is incumbent upon them to appear in response to a summons and/or reply to a notice.
B. Supply 2. Principle of Mutuality Indian Medical Association Versus Union of India – Kerala High Court W.A.NO.1659 of 2024 date 11.04.2025 [2025] 173 taxmann. com 474 (Ker.)
4
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
2025 SCC OnLine Ker 2331 In Favour of Assessee Issue: The petitioner runs various mutual Schemes for the benefit of its member-doctors, e.g. Social Security Schemes or SSS (I, II, and III), Professional Disability Support Scheme (PDSS), Professional Protection Scheme, Kerala Health Scheme, etc. All the Schemes are to support fellow doctors, while one or two Schemes support their immediate family members. The member-doctors contribute an admission/annual fee, and in cases of certain Schemes (e.g. SSS, PDSS) also a fraternity contribution upon the death/disability of a fellow member doctor; the pooled sum is paid out to the widow of deceased doctors, disabled doctors, doctors afflicted with specified diseases, etc. The question which was placed before the High Court was whether the Association is liable to pay GST on services rendered by it to its members under the aforesaid Schemes? In this background, the Petitioner challenged Constitutional validity of insertion Section 7(1)(aa) and Explanation thereto and its retrospective effect from July 01, 2017. Ruling: The Hon’ble High Court held as follows: A.
The Constitution has not been amended to deem a supply of service by a club or association to its members as a taxable service for the purposes of GST. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. – [(2019) 19 SCC 107]/[2019] 110 taxmann. com 47 is authority for the proposition that the principle of mutuality has survived under the Constitution even after the 46th Amendment. A phrase as understood under the Constitution cannot be statutorily expanded by any legislature since the power to legislate is itself one that is conferred by the Constitution.
B.
The concepts of “supply” and “service” having been judicially interpreted as requiring at least two persons – a provider and a recipient, for inferring their existence, and the Supreme Court having held in Calcutta Club that the principle of mutuality has survived the 46th
5
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
amendment to the Constitution. As the said judgment holds as a binding precedent and the Constitution is not amended suitably to remove the concept of mutuality from the concepts of supply and service thereunder, the impugned amendment to the CGST/SGST Acts necessarily fails the test of constitutionality. C.
The provisions of Section 2(17)(e) and Section 7(1)(aa) and the Explanation thereto of the CGST Act, 2017 and the provisions of Section 2(17)(e) and Section 7(1)(aa) and the Explanation thereto of the KGST Act are declared as unconstitutional and void being ultra vires the provisions of Article 246A read with Article 366 (12A) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
D.
Retrospective operation to be illegal. The insertion of a statutory provision that alters the basis of indirect taxation with retrospective effect, so as to tax persons for a prior period when they had not anticipated such a levy and, consequently, had not obtained an opportunity to collect the tax from the recipient of their services, militates against the concept of Rule of Law.
3. Compensation received towards acquisition of land Smt. Asha R, Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement-17), Bangalore – Karnataka High Court Writ Petition No. 2552 of 2024 (T-IT) date 10.09.2024 [2025] 173 taxmann.com 863 (Kar.) In Favour of Assessee Issue: The petitioners were owners of immovable properties which were acquired by the KIADB for the benefit of the BMRCL for the purpose of construction of Bangalore Metro Rail Project under the provisions contained in Section 28 of the KIAD Act. In pursuance of the same, the BMRCL offered package compensation to the petitioners, who accepted the same and entered into Agreements with the KIADB under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act and received compensation towards acquisition of the lands. Subsequently, the revenue
6
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
issued show cause notices calling upon the petitioners to pay GST towards the solatium component of the package compensation received by the petitioners. The petitioners having issued replies to the impugned show cause notices, the respondents passed the orders in original upholding and confirming the demands as per the impugned show cause notices. The issue before the High Court was whether the compensation paid in favour of the petitioners towards acquisition of their lands by the State/KIADB under the head ‘Solatium’ is exigible/amenable to levy of GST under the provisions of CGST/KGST Act, 2017? Ruling: The Hon’ble High Court held as follows: A.
Neither the agreements nor other documents entered into between the petitioners and KIADB indicate that the petitioners have been paid solatium towards compensation received by them from the KIADB. In fact, it is only in the package compensation offered by the BMRCL that it chose to split up the compensation offered to the petitioners under various heads by designating solatium under one head amongst several heads of compensation; merely because the package compensation offered by the BMRCL is split into various heads, the compensation offered by the BMRCL under the designated head “Solatium” cannot be construed or treated or understood as solatium in the real sense of the term/expression “solatium” either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the L.A. Act’), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the RFCTLARR Act’).
B.
Though the BMRCL categorised a particular component of the consideration offered by them to the petitioners as solatium, in reality, the transaction essentially entered into between petitioners and KIADB under Section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act was in the nature of a sale/transfer of all rights in land of the petitioners which was directly and squarely exempted from levy of GST under Entry 5 of the Schedule – III of the CGST/KGST Act, since compulsory acquisitions of land where the owners lose
7
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
their entire right on the property is akin to sale and ought to be treated as such and on this score also, the impugned orders, notices etc., deserve to be quashed. C.
The primary/main ground for levying GST on solatium by the respondents is by contending that the act of the petitioners in receiving the solatium component tantamount to agreeing to an obligation to tolerate the act of acquisition within the meaning of Entry 5(e) of the CGST/KGST Act; in this regard, it is relevant to state that the entire compensation including the solatium component having been received by the petitioners pursuant to various documents executed by them in favour of the KIADB would clearly not amount to agreeing to an obligation to tolerate acquisition; in fact, rather than tolerating acquisition of their lands, petitioners have undisputedly executed various documents in favour of KIADB relinquishing/transferring/selling their right over the lands after receiving monetary compensation and neither these transactions nor any act, deed or thing done by the petitioners in this regard would amount to agreeing to the obligation to tolerate an act by the petitioners so as to attract Entry 5(e) of Schedule – II and consequently, on this ground also, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.
D.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the compensation paid in favour of the petitioners towards acquisition of their lands by the State/KIADB under the Head ‘Solatium’ is not exigible/amenable to levy of GST under the provisions of CGST/KGST Act, 2017.
4. Assignment of leasehold rights of the plot of land allotted by GIDC Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry Versus Union of India – Gujarat High Court R/Special Civil Application No. 11345 of 2023 date 03.01.2025 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 537/[2025] 170 taxmann.com 251 In Favour of Assessee
8
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
Issue: Whether the assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in plots of land allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) for 99 years, along with buildings constructed thereon, by the lessee/assignor to a third party/assignee for a lump-sum consideration constitutes a “supply of services” under the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), thereby attracting GST under Section 9(1). Ruling: The Hon’ble High Court held as follows: A.
Section 7 of the GST Act which provides for the scope of supply of good or services or both for the purpose of the GST Act includes all forms of supply of goods or services or both by any form such as transfer, sale, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business. Therefore, considering the settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts from time to time, it is true that any lease or letting out of a building including commercial, industrial, residential complex for business either wholly or partly would be “supply of service”. Therefore, reading the provisions of the Act together and harmoniously to understand the nature of levy and the object and purpose of its imposition, no activity of the nature mentioned in the inclusive provision of section 7 of the GST Act can be left out of the net of tax. Simultaneously, the provisions of section 7 have to be read in terms of substantive provision and Schedules which treats the activity as supply of service, particularly, in relation to land and building and includes a lease. The consideration, therefore, as premium/one time premium is a measure on which tax is to be levied, assessed and recovered.
B.
When the GIDC allots the plot of land on lease of 99 years and charges premium for such allotment followed by periodical lease rent to be paid, is to be considered as supply of service in relation to land and building read with clause 5(a) of Schedule II which specifically
9
Apex Court and High Court GST Case Laws
provides that renting of immovable property shall be treated as supply of services. C.
However, when such leasehold right is transferred by the lessee-assignor in favour of a third person-assignee by execution of deed of assignment, it would be nothing but transfer of an “immovable property” in view of the settled legal position to the effect that lease for 99 years or for a long-term in consideration of premium paid is as much an alienation as sale or mortgage.
D.
Scope of “supply of services” would not include transfer of leasehold rights as supply of service as it would be transfer of “immovable property” being a benefit arising out of immovable property consisting of land and building.
E.
Assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights of the plot of land allotted by GIDC to the lessee in favour of third party-assignee for a consideration shall be assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of “immovable property” by the lessee-assignor in favour of third party-assignee who would become lessee of GIDC in place of original allottee-lessee. In such circumstances, provisions of section 7(1)(a) of the GST Act providing for scope of supply read with clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable to such transaction of assignment of leasehold rights of land and building and same would not be subject to levy of GST as provided under section 9 of the GST Act.
5. Sale of partially constructed building Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India – Karnataka High Court Writ Petition No. 12700 of 2023 (T-RES) date 10.09.2024/ [2025] 173 taxmann.com 480 (Kar.) In Favour of Assessee Issue: Lotus Shopping Centres Private Limited was constructing a mall named Lotus Shopping Mall. During the pendency of the construction of the mall, there were insolvency proceedings
10
APEX COURT & HIGH COURT GST CASE LAW – 2017 TO 2025
Rs. 725/-
AUTHOR : AIFTP, SIDDESHWAR YELAMALI, BHANU MURTHY J.S., T.N. RAGHVENDRA PUBLISHER : TAXMANN DATE OF PUBLICATION : DECEMBER 2025 EDITION : 2026 EDITION ISBN NO : 9789375610618 NO. OF PAGES : 208 BINDING TYPE : PAPERBACK
DESCRIPTION Apex Court & High Court GST Case Law – 2017 to 2025 is an authoritative compendium of 100+ landmark GST judgments of the Supreme Court of India and leading High Courts, curated under the aegis of the All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) and published by Taxmann. It compresses eight years of GST jurisprudence into clear, issue-led case digests that connect statutory provisions, rules, notifications and judicial reasoning for quick, reliable application in practice. Each ruling is presented with the issue, the court’s reasoning, and the practical takeaway, making the book equally valuable for litigation strategy, compliance decisions and risk management across the GST life cycle. This book is intended for the following audience: • Tax Litigators & GST Practitioners • Corporate Tax Heads & In-House Counsel • Government Officers & Enforcement Authorities • Academicians, Researchers & Students • Trade and Industry Organisations The Present Publication is the Latest Edition, commissioned by AIFTP and published exclusively by Taxmann. It is authored by CA. Siddeshwar Yelamali, Adv. Bhanu Murthy J.S. & CA. T.N. Raghavendra, with the following noteworthy features: • [Coverage of High-impact Judgments] Key rulings shaping GST interpretation, including:
o Mohit Minerals (SC) – Ocean freight levy
o Safari Retreats (SC) – ITC on immovable property
o Radha Krishan Industries (SC) – Provisional attachment safeguards
o Statutory bodies/universities, export refund valuation, and major rulings on Rule 86A, Section 83, Sections 129/130, Section 69 (arrest) and Section 16(4)
• [Thematically Organised for Practical Use] Structured into 25 chapters (Supply, Levy, Exemption, IGST, Valuation, Classification, ITC, Refund, Audit, Notices, Recovery, Attachment, Detention/ Confiscation, Search/Seizure, Arrest, RTI, IBC interplay, Rectification, Service of Notice, etc.) • [Uniform Case-digest Format] Every case captures the issue, reasoning, outcome, and practical implications • [Strong ITC & Enforcement Focus] Detailed treatment of ITC conditions/time limits, blocked credit, supplier-default disputes, provisional attachment, coercive recovery, detention/ confiscation, summons and arrest safeguards • [Research Utilities] Includes an alphabetical Table of Cases and a Subject Index for fast retrieval