High Court of Rajasthan17 August 2026

Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School v. Union of India

For assessee

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15963 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 9, read with sections 7, 11 and 168, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where infrastructure company held registrations in multiple States administratively assigned to State authorities but was investigated by DGGI Kanpur for alleged cross-State invoice chains and issued a common SCN, such investigation and issuance by DGGI were valid as DGGI officers legally possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation, hence jurisdictional objection was not to be sustained GST: Where petitioner challenged jurisdiction of Additional or Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi North to adjudicate common SCN citing later notifications, since prior notification and circular empowered Delhi North to adjudicate based on highest tax demand in SCN falling within Delhi, and revised allocation still mapped relevant noticee to Delhi North, jurisdictional objection to allocation was to be rejected

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position

CGST S.5

GSTAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2026

For revenue

Boilla Venkataramana Reddy v. Shivenari Canteen Services

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