Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
5 rulings found
AAR West Bengal
Where applicant managing facility for commercial building recovered electricity charges at actuals as per distribution company bills based on consumption without markup or profit, such recovery can be deemed to be considered as recovery in the capacity of a pure agent, and electricity charges so collected should be excluded from value of supply and no GST was leviable on these recoveries
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…
AAR Rajasthan
Job work services for processing raw brass falling under HSN 7403 into brass statues under HSN 8306 are taxable at 5 per cent under Heading 9988 subject to applicant being registered at relevant time and where such registration condition is not fulfilled such services are taxable at 18 per cent GST: Statues/vases made of resin are not classifiable under HSN 9703 00 90 as Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 97 makes it clear that heading 9703 does not apply to mass-produced reproductions or works of conventional craftsmanship of a commercial character; Resin statues merit classification under tariff item 3926 40 29 and ornamental resin vases under tariff item 3926 40 99 GST: Deities made of marble are classifiable under HSN 6802 91 00 and same are exempt from GST from 22-9-2025, however it is clarified that exemption is available only where article supplied is in a fact a 'deity', decorative statues or figures which are not deities would not get benefit of exemption GST: Deities made of tropical wood are classifiable under chapter 44, specifically under HSN 4420 11 00 and same are exempt from GST, provided that article supplied is in fact a deity and not decorative statues or figures GST: Deities made of wood other than tropical wood are classifiable under chapter 44, specifically under HSN 4420 19 00 and same are exempt from GST, provided that article supplied is in fact a deity and not decorative statues or figures
AAR Karnataka
Where applicant, a registered partnership, supplied ballast and loaded it into Railway wagons using JCB loaders without undertaking any building, construction, erection or activities connected with immovable property, such work did not meet statutory requirements for works contract and thus could not be classified as one under GST law. GST: Where applicant executed contract for supply of ballast and separate loading service with distinct pricing, sequential execution, separate invoices, and transfer of title to Railways before loading, such supplies were not naturally bundled or composite, but independent and liable to separate GST as per relevant classification and rate for each supply. GST: Where applicant provided loading services of Railway-owned ballast into wagons using mechanical loaders without engaging in transport or wagon movement, activity was essentially cargo handling, classifiable under SAC 996719, and attracted GST at 18 percent as per relevant rate notification
Madras High Court
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