The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime continues to evolve through judicial interpretations. From the Supreme Court to various High Courts and the GST Appellate Tribunal, recent rulings have provided much-needed clarity on several contentious issues. This article summarizes the most significant recent GST judgments in simple language.
Supreme Court Rulings
1. No GST on Transfer of Leasehold Rights of MIDC Plots
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's Special Leave Petition and affirmed that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial plots does not attract GST.
In Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion) & Anr. v. Aerocom Cushions Private Limited, the assessee had transferred its leasehold rights in a MIDC industrial plot (with a factory building) to a third party with MIDC's consent. The Revenue sought to levy 18% GST on the consideration, treating it as a 'supply of services'.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Bombay High Court that the transaction amounted to a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a supply of service under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The one-time assignment extinguished the assessee's rights in the property and had no nexus with business.
Key takeaway: Transfer of long-term leasehold land rights is exempt from GST as it represents transfer of immovable property rights.
2. 28% GST on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports & Casinos — Retrospectively from 2017
On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the levy of 28% GST on the full face value of stakes in online gaming, fantasy sports, and casinos. The demands at stake are approximately ₹2.5 lakh crore.
The Court ruled that for GST purposes, what matters is not whether a game involves skill or chance, but whether money is staked on an uncertain outcome. Critically, the Court held that the 2023 amendments were "clarificatory and explanatory" and therefore retrospective, reaching back to July 2017.
This aspect has drawn significant criticism, as the GST Council had originally finalised the amendments prospectively from October 1, 2023. Many experts argue this represents an unprecedented case of judicial retrospectivity.
Key takeaway: Online gaming, fantasy sports, and casinos attract 28% GST on full stake value retrospectively from July 2017.
High Court Rulings
3. Bombay High Court: No GST on Corporate Guarantees Without Consideration
The Bombay High Court in D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Private Limited v. UOI held that GST is not leviable on corporate guarantees issued to group companies without consideration.
Relying on the Supreme Court's Edelweiss decision under the service tax regime, the Court concluded that in the absence of consideration, the transaction does not qualify as a taxable supply.
However, this ruling faces strong criticism. Legal experts argue that unlike the service tax regime, GST law explicitly deems transactions between related persons (including group companies) as taxable supplies even without consideration under Schedule I of the CGST Act. The definition of 'business' under GST is also exceptionally broad.
Key takeaway: While the Bombay High Court held no GST on corporate guarantees without consideration, the ruling may not survive further appeals.
4. Bombay High Court: Multiple GST Refund Applications Allowed
In Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that a second refund application for the same tax period cannot be rejected merely because an earlier application covered that period.
The petitioner had inadvertently missed an invoice worth ₹1.10 crore in their first refund application and filed a second claim within the two-year limitation period. The Court ruled that Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not impose any restriction on filing multiple refund applications.
Key takeaway: Refund claims cannot be denied on technical grounds when statutory conditions are satisfied and the claim is within the limitation period.
GST Appellate Tribunal Rulings
5. Three Key Rulings on Taxability, Intermediary Status, and ITC
Healthcare Services Retain Exemption: The High Court held that healthcare services provided by one hospital to another's patients remain exempt from GST. Classification must be based on substance over form — once the substance is healthcare, exemption applies regardless of contractual arrangements.
Overseas Procurement Hub Not an 'Intermediary': The GSTAT held that an overseas group company acting as a central procurement hub (identifying suppliers, negotiating terms, concluding contracts) does not qualify as an intermediary. Such services are principal services, not ancillary facilitation.
GSTR-2A Matching Not Required for ITC on Imports: ITC on import of goods and SEZ procurements cannot be denied merely because it was incorrectly reported in the wrong column of GSTR-3B.
Key takeaway: Substance over form applies to GST exemptions; intermediary status requires genuine facilitation, not full procurement; and ITC claims should not fail for minor reporting errors.
Conclusion
These recent judgments reflect a balanced approach to GST interpretation. While taxpayers have received relief on leasehold transfers and refund claims, the online gaming ruling imposes significant retrospective liability. The corporate guarantee ruling, though taxpayer-friendly, faces an uncertain future. As GST jurisprudence continues to develop, taxpayers must stay informed and ensure compliance while asserting their rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment