High Court of Delhi13 August 2026

Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

For revenue

W.P.(C) NO. 9410 OF 2021

The ruling in brief

Where an Advocate registered as Insolvency Professional rendered insolvency and receivership services pursuant to NCLT appointment, such services were not classified as legal services and hence not covered under reverse charge, making professional liable under forward charge to obtain GST registration and issue GST- compliant invoices, while legal services rendered as Advocate would continue under reverse charge

Provisions considered

Section 11, read with section 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim

Bombay High Court10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Dharma Productions (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Where film producer gave licensed rights to distributors to broadcast and show cinematographic films for a limited term and supplied content via encrypted hard disks or electronic links without providing software, same was to be classified as temporary licensing of IPR under SAC 997332 taxable at 12 percent applied, and not as supply of information technology software taxable at 18 percent since delivery mode and content format did not satisfy statutory classification for software. GST: Where petitioner gave licensed cinematographic rights to distributors and paid GST at 12 percent under SAC 997332 before CBIC circulars clarified overlap between 12 percent (SAC 9973) and 18 percent (SAC 9996) rates, such circulars would be binding and applicable to entire licensing chain; so confining benefit only to distributor-exhibitor transaction and not to producer-distributor transaction was contrary to law and not justified

Gujarat High Court2 Sept 2026

For assessee

Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where petitioner-entity registered under section 12AA of income tax act, 1961 carried out pollution control and treatment of industrial waste, such activity is preservation of environment and falls under clause 2(r)(iv) of Chapter 99, thus services attracted Nil rate of GST as per Notification 12/2017 and levy under Notification 11/2017 was not applicable. GST: Where petitioners, having relied on charitable exemption under section 12AA of Income tax act, 1961, did not pay GST for specified period but later obtained registration and began paying tax, invocation of section 74 on grounds of mis- declaration or wilful suppression was not justified as all facts were known, there was no mala fide intent or deliberate evasion, and show cause notice was quashed

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Dharma Productions (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra

Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. v. Union of India