Supply & valuation — tax rulings

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Pushpendra Kumar Meena

Where assessee-bank was taxed on turnover comprising amounts received as interest on deposits, loans or advances and claimed exemption under Notification 12/2017-CT(R), Entry 27, since such interest-based consideration is specifically exempted except for credit card interest, demand for GST with interest and penalty on this component was not sustainable in law. GST: Where assessee-bank claimed exemption for Rs. 3.52 crores as interest-related adjustments attributable to other States during relevant period, but failed to submit borrower-wise or State-wise supporting documents and only provided a consolidated audit report and CA certificate lacking specific findings, exemption claim was denied since evidentiary burden was not discharged and adverse inference was warranted

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Pushpendra Kumar Meena

Madras High Court18 Sept 2026

For assessee

McKinsey Global Services India Pvt ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals II)

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

AAR West Bengal1 Sept 2026

For assessee

DH Maintenance Ltd., In re

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

Madras High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (TASMAC) v. K.R.Subramanian

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

CGST S.7

Gujarat High Court14 Aug 2026

For assessee

Torrent Power Ltd. v. Union of India

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 Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

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 Court30 Jul 2026

For assessee

Ranjith Lal. S. v. Assistant Commissioner Central Tax & Central Excise

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 Court21 Jul 2026

Cvent India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST

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

Supreme Court21 Jul 2026

For assessee

Union of India v. Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry

SLP dismissed against order of high court that no GST is leviable on assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot with building, as such transfer of benefits arising from immovable property is not a 'supply'.'

Gujarat High Court2 Jul 2026

For assessee

Agriex v. Union of India

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 Court29 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Fives Call - KCP Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs

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

AAR Gujarat24 Jun 2026

For assessee

Pon Pure Chemical India (P.) Ltd., In re

Compensation recovered from transporters for transit loss beyond tolerance limit stipulated in contracts, being liquidated damages for breach of contract, was not consideration for any supply; in absence of any agreement to tolerate breach, such amounts were mere compensation and not liable to GST

Madras High Court8 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

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

GSTAT New Delhi4 Jun 2026

For revenue

Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected. GST: Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims