LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 13.05.2026
🔥📛 Composite SCN matter under SC scanner; Issues notice against Andhra Pradesh & Bombay HC judgments
➡️ The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods or financial years is impermissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/APGST Act, reaffirming its earlier ruling in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 and batch that separate proceedings must be initiated for each tax period.
➡️ In the case of Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements, the assessment order dated December 30, 2023 covered the period from July 2017 to FY 2021-22 through one consolidated proceeding, which the Assessee challenged as contrary to the statutory scheme governing GST assessments and adjudication.
➡️ While multiple grounds were raised before the High Court, the Court confined its decision to the issue of composite assessment, observing that the legality of a single order spanning several tax periods itself was sufficient to invalidate both the assessment order and the appellate order, while leaving all other issues open.
➡️ The High Court consequently set aside the impugned assessment and appellate orders and granted liberty to the Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings independently for each assessment year or relevant tax period, thereby reinforcing procedural discipline and period-wise adjudication under GST law.
➡️ The Supreme Court has now issued notice in the Revenue’s SLP against the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling and tagged it with similar matters including Milroc Good Earth Developers, Supraja Dairy, Techops Infrastructures, and Sahiti Agencies, where High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Bombay similarly held that issuing a single SCN or assessment for multiple tax periods amounts to procedural overreach; it was also noted before the Supreme Court that the Government is internally considering legislative amendments on this issue.
✔️ SC – The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST Appeals) & Ors. vs M/s Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements & Anr. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 14994/2026]
🔥📛 HC: Providing education consultancy/marketing and recruitment support to foreign universities not ‘intermediary services’; Directs refund
➡️ The Delhi High Court held that education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services provided by Fateh Education Consulting Pvt. Ltd. to foreign universities qualify as ‘export of services’ and not as ‘intermediary services’ under GST, thereby entitling the assessee to refund benefits.
➡️ The Court set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order rejecting the refund claim, observing that the assessee rendered services on its own account to foreign universities and did not merely arrange or facilitate supplies between universities and students.
➡️ Relying on earlier decisions in Global Opportunities Private Limited and K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that services do not become ‘intermediary services’ merely because they support or promote the business objectives of a foreign client.
➡️ The Court emphasized three determinative tests for identifying intermediary services: the true nature of the service, the contractual recipient of the service, and the person liable to pay consideration. Since the foreign universities engaged and paid the assessee directly for consultancy and recruitment support, the intermediary classification was held inapplicable.
➡️ The Court noted that the assessee neither charged students, nor had authority to bind the foreign universities, nor guaranteed admissions, and therefore functioned independently as a service provider. Accordingly, the Revenue was directed to process and grant the GST refund within two months in line with settled legal principles.
✔️ Delhi HC – Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner & Ors [W.P.(C) 17500/2025]
🔥📛 HC: Penalty u/s 122 matching wrongly availed ITC not disproportionate; Rejects Rs. 10K cap plea
➡️ The Madras High Court upheld penalty orders passed under Sections 74 and 122(1)(ii) & (vii) of the CGST Act for circular trading and wrongful ITC availment, confirming penalties equal to the ineligible ITC amounts of Rs. 12.3 crore and Rs. 13.6 crore respectively. The Court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that penalty under Section 122 is capped at Rs. 10,000.
➡️ Interpreting the phrase “whichever is higher” in Section 122(1), the Court held that the statute mandates levy of the higher amount between Rs. 10,000 and the tax/ITC involved, leaving no discretion with the Assessing Officer to impose a lesser penalty where substantial wrongful ITC has been availed or passed on.
➡️ The Court found that the adjudication orders contained sufficient reasoning and demonstrated proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It observed that the assessees had wrongly availed and passed on ITC through circular trading to artificially inflate turnover and project themselves as major players in the medical equipment business for obtaining bank finance.
➡️ Rejecting reliance on Supreme Court judgments dealing with proportionality of punishment, the Court held that such principles cannot override the explicit wording of Section 122(1) of the GST law. It emphasized that GST provisions are self-contained and cannot be diluted by importing principles from earlier indirect tax regimes that stood subsumed under GST.
➡️ While affirming the legality of the penalty proceedings and observing that even Section 122(1A) prima facie supports equivalent penalties for wrongful ITC transactions, the Court granted relief on procedural grounds by permitting the assessees to file appeals under Section 107 without insisting on the statutory pre-deposit of 10% of the penalty, considering the financial hardship involved.
✔️ Madras HC – Tvl. SAM Enterprises & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer & Anr. [W.P. Nos. 2628, 2630, 2633, 2912, 2925, 2927, 2982, 3206, 3211, 3949 of 2026]
🔥📛 WB AAAR: Flipkart’s last-mile road delivery services to customers’ address, classifiable as courier services, not GTA
➡️ The West Bengal AAAR set aside the AAR ruling and held that Flipkart’s proposed delivery model for goods purchased through e-commerce platforms is not an exempt GTA service under Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R), but a taxable courier/logistics/fulfilment service. The authority observed that the Respondent undertakes an integrated delivery process involving pick-up from source hubs, multiple transit stages, and doorstep delivery, which goes beyond the scope of a conventional GTA arrangement.
➡️ AAAR found that the essential elements of a valid GTA contract were absent in the proposed model. The transporter’s identity was never disclosed to customers, there was no clear consensus ad idem establishing a contract of carriage, and the Customer/Buyer Terms of Use merely imposed a unilateral arrangement portraying customers as engaging transport services independently. Consequently, the authority held that the alleged customer-GTA relationship lacked legal and commercial substance.
➡️ The ruling further held that the proposed transportation mechanism did not satisfy statutory requirements applicable to GTA services. AAAR noted that last-mile delivery through bicycles, two-wheelers, or electric-operated vehicles may not qualify as transportation through a “goods carriage” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It also observed that the proposed “single consignment note” lacked essential particulars such as vehicle details and point of origin, thereby failing to qualify as a legally valid consignment note.
➡️ AAAR clarified that mere issuance of a document titled as a “consignment note” cannot automatically determine classification as a GTA service. Relying on Circular No. 104/7/2008-ST and Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017, it emphasized that exemption is available only where transportation of goods by road through a goods carriage is actually undertaken. The authority therefore rejected the argument that transportation through a goods carriage is unnecessary for claiming GTA exemption.
➡️ Examining the arrangement in substance, AAAR concluded that the activities predominantly resembled organized courier and logistics operations involving collection, sorting, staging, transshipment, tracking, and last-mile delivery rather than simple transportation by a GTA. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, AAAR observed that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, artificial contractual structuring designed solely to claim exemption cannot be sustained, and the purported characterization of customers as recipients of GTA services was illusory and commercially unrealistic.
✔️ West Bengal AAAR – In the matter of M/s Flipkart India Private Limited [Appeal Case No. 06/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2026]
🔥📛 Odisha AAR: Distribution of Coursera’s digital content to Odisha-Skill-Development-Authority not classifiable as ‘education service’; Denies exemption
➡️ The Odisha AAR held that supply of Coursera user licences by the applicant to Odisha Skill Development Authority (OSDA) was not an “education service” under Heading 9992, as the applicant merely enabled access to Coursera’s digital platform and did not itself impart education or conduct training programmes.
➡️ The Authority observed that the applicant acted only as a distributor/sub-contractor of Coursera Inc., USA, raising invoices on OSDA and earning a contractual markup, while the actual educational content, instruction, curriculum and certifications were provided by third-party universities and instructors hosted on Coursera’s platform.
➡️ Rejecting exemption under Sl. No. 72 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate), the AAR clarified that exemption for training services applies only where services are rendered under a recognised training programme by eligible entities, which was absent in the present arrangement.
➡️ The AAR further held that OSDA, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, cannot be treated as the “State Government” or a “Governmental Authority” for claiming the benefit of the exemption notification, thereby denying concessional treatment on this ground as well.
➡️ The transaction was ultimately classified under Heading 9973, specifically SAC 997331 relating to licensing services for the right to use computer software and databases, since the dominant nature of the supply was grant of limited access rights to Coursera’s proprietary digital platform; accordingly, GST at 18% was held payable on the supply.
✔️ Odisha HC – In the matter of Unitech Engineers [ORDER NO. 01/ODISHA-AAR/2026-27]
🔥📛 HC: Tax on ocean-freight recovered from Indian vessel supplier in CIF-imports impermissible; Directs refund
➡️ The Bombay High Court quashed the ₹15.8 crore IGST demand raised against a shipping service provider engaged in freight and vessel services connected with CIF imports, holding that once customs duty is paid on the CIF value inclusive of freight and insurance, the same freight element cannot again be taxed under IGST through the forward charge mechanism.
➡️ The Court held that transportation services provided in relation to CIF imports form part of a composite supply under Sections 2(30) and 8 of the CGST Act, and therefore cannot be artificially segregated for a separate levy of IGST in the hands of the shipping line after tax has already been discharged on the imported goods.
➡️ Rejecting the Department’s reliance on Section 13(9) of the IGST Act for determining place of supply in India, the Court observed that the Revenue incorrectly invoked the provision despite the transaction being squarely covered by the Supreme Court ruling in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which had already settled the issue against double taxation on ocean freight in CIF contracts.
➡️ The High Court also noted that Section 13(9) of the IGST Act stood omitted with effect from October 1, 2023 without any saving clause, strengthening the assessee’s contention that the provision could not be relied upon to sustain the impugned demand or continue proceedings initiated on that basis.
➡️ Reiterating the GST framework against multiple taxation on the same component of supply, the Court set aside both the show cause notice and adjudication order, and directed the Revenue to grant consequential refund along with applicable interest within four weeks, providing significant relief to shipping lines and service providers involved in CIF import transactions.
✔️ Bombay HC – Midas Tankers Private Limited v. Union of India [WRIT PETITION NO. 2554 OF 2026]
