LATEST GST CASE LAWS: 29.05.2026
🔥📛 SC to examine effect of omission of Rule-96(10) on pending proceedings; Tags Revenue’s challenge
➡️ The Supreme Court has tagged Revenue’s SLP against the Bombay High Court ruling in Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. with the pending Goodluck India Ltd. matter, as both cases raise the common issue of the legal effect of omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules without a saving clause and its impact on pending proceedings.
➡️ The central dispute concerns whether exporters who availed benefits under Advance Authorisation, EPCG, or related customs/GST exemption notifications were nevertheless entitled to claim refund of IGST paid on exports, and whether action initiated for alleged violation of Rule 96(10) can continue after the rule’s omission.
➡️ The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Hikal Ltd., held that omission of Rule 96(10) without any saving provision resulted in the extinguishment of proceedings founded solely on that rule, as the legal basis for such action ceased to exist.
➡️ The High Court further held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve or continue proceedings arising exclusively from Rule 96(10) once the provision has been omitted without an express saving clause, thereby preventing Revenue from relying on the omitted rule for pending actions.
➡️ Applying these principles, the High Court quashed the summons issued to Titan Laboratories because they were based specifically on alleged contravention of Rule 96(10) read with Notification No. 79/2017-Cus; however, it preserved Revenue’s liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for any independent statutory violations under other valid legal provisions.
✔️ SC – Union of India & Ors. v. Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).23389/2026]
🔥📛 P&H-HC to examine survival of newly inserted Entry-Tax provisions after repeal of Entry-52 qua Section-174
➡️ The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while hearing challenges to the 2021 amendments to Section 174(2) of the Haryana GST Act and the Removal of Difficulty Order dated 11 December 2024, prima facie observed that after repeal of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2008 and deletion of Entry 52 of List II through the 101st Constitutional Amendment, the State may have lost the legislative competence to enact provisions facilitating collection or recovery of Entry Tax.
➡️ The Court noted that Section 174(2) of the Haryana GST Act was intended only to save actions already taken under the repealed 2008 Act before its repeal, raising a substantial question whether the impugned amendments and executive order go beyond a saving provision and effectively seek to revive or operationalise recovery mechanisms for a tax regime that no longer has constitutional backing.
➡️ The assessees argued that the 2021 amendment and the 2024 executive order impermissibly extended the scope of the saving clause by creating machinery for recovery of Entry Tax liabilities after the State’s taxing power under Entry 52 had ceased. They relied on the litigation history involving Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the Constitution Bench and Nine-Judge Bench decisions in Jindal Stainless, subsequent remand proceedings, and judicial precedents including Tirumala Constructions.
➡️ The State defended the provisions by contending that the validity of Section 174(2) itself was not under challenge and that the amendments merely provided procedural mechanisms to implement and recover liabilities already preserved by the saving clause. According to the State, the measures did not impose any fresh levy or create new tax obligations.
➡️ Finding that the constitutional and statutory issues require deeper examination, the High Court recorded that the matter warrants further consideration and granted interim protection by staying coercive action based on the challenged provisions. The batch of petitions has been listed for final hearing on 17 July 2026.
✔️ P&H HC – Merino Panel Products Limited v. State of Haryana and others [CWP-3185 of 2025]
🔥📛 HC: Preferential-Location -Charges by DLF taxable as part of composite-supply qua construction services; Quashes separate levy
➡️ The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the orders of the AAR and AAAR that had treated Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected by DLF Ltd. as an independent taxable supply separate from construction and development services under GST.
➡️ The dispute arose when DLF sought an advance ruling on whether PLC charged for allowing buyers to choose a preferred location of a flat formed part of the composite supply of construction services or constituted a separate supply liable to independent taxation.
➡️ Both the AAR and AAAR held that PLC was not naturally bundled with construction services and therefore attracted GST separately; however, the assessee challenged these findings before the High Court.
➡️ The High Court relied on the recommendations of the 54th GST Council Meeting and Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST, which clarified that the option to choose a preferred apartment location is an integral and naturally bundled element of construction services, making PLC part of the composite supply taxable at the same rate as the underlying construction service before issuance of the completion certificate.
➡️ Holding the circular to be clarificatory and therefore retrospective in nature, the High Court ruled that the earlier AAR and AAAR decisions could not survive once they became inconsistent with the binding statutory clarification, and accordingly set aside both orders with consequential relief to the assessee.
✔️ P&H HC – DLF Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors. [CWP No. 17530 of 2022]
🔥📛 HC: Construction of roads vis-à-vis toll-collection-rights, a taxable ‘barter’ between NHAI and concessionaire; Sustains demand
➡️ The Rajasthan High Court held that a toll-road concessionaire operating under a DBFOT/BOT (Toll) model supplied a taxable works contract service to NHAI by undertaking the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the highway. The grant of toll collection rights, project-related permissions and leave and licence over land constituted valuable consideration for these obligations, thereby attracting GST.
➡️ The Court rejected the contention that the concessionaire received only exempt toll revenue from road users and rendered no service to NHAI. It held that the arrangement effectively operated as a barter transaction, where construction and maintenance services were exchanged for exclusive rights to operate the road and collect toll during the concession period, making the consideration taxable under GST.
➡️ The exemption under Entry 23 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) was held to be limited to services by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of toll. The Court clarified that this exemption does not extend to construction and maintenance services supplied to NHAI under a concession agreement, which fall under works contract services and remain taxable.
➡️ The Court also rejected the argument of double taxation arising from GST already paid by the EPC contractor engaged by the concessionaire. It emphasized that there were two independent contractual relationships—one between NHAI and the concessionaire, and another between the concessionaire and the EPC contractor. Since NHAI had no contractual relationship with the subcontractor, GST paid by the EPC contractor could not negate the concessionaire’s separate tax liability on services supplied to NHAI.
➡️ Endorsing the reasoning of the Telangana High Court in GMR Pochanpalli Expressways Ltd., the Court upheld the applicability of the CBIC Circular dated 17.06.2021 and affirmed that GST exemption is not available merely because toll is collected under a BOT (Toll) arrangement. Accordingly, the Court sustained the GST demand, interest and penalty against the concessionaire, confirming that toll collection rights granted under such concession agreements constitute consideration for taxable construction and maintenance services supplied to NHAI.
✔️ Rajasthan HC – CG Tollway Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15048/2025]
