Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
Kanwal Chaudhary, an Advocate enrolled as an Insolvency Professional, challenged GST treatment before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 9410 of 2021, decided 13 August 2026. The dispute concerned insolvency resolution and receivership services performed after NCLT appointment, as distinct from pure legal representation. The Court held such IP services are not "legal services" for reverse charge under section 9 read with section 11 of the CGST Act. The professional must obtain GST registration, charge tax on forward charge, and issue compliant tax invoices. Services rendered strictly as Advocate continue under reverse charge. IBC section 16 was distinguished where relevant. Revenue prevailed on classification, affecting compliance templates for IPs. This summary is for professional awareness only and is not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.11 — Section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- CGST S.9 — Levy of CGST; includes reverse-charge liability in notified cases.
- IBC S.16 — IBC S.16 as considered in the ruling.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
S. Thiruvenkadam v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
S. Thiruvenkadam, who acquired rights to collect market fees through public auction, challenged GST on that activity before the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 29338 of 2024, decided 23 June 2026. He was not a "local authority" under Article 243W of the Constitution; commercial exploitation of auctioned collection rights was held not exempt under section 11 of the CGST Act. Tender conditions required payment of applicable taxes, and concessions or waivers during the COVID period did not create a right to withhold statutory GST while dues remained unpaid. The writ was dismissed, favouring the revenue. The judgment clarifies limits of municipal-function exemptions when fee collection is privatised. This summary is for CA clients in local fee contracts and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga v. Union Territory of J And K
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga filed WP(C) No. 1016 of 2023 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh; order 18 September 2026. The union operated taxi stands on public land under temporary allotment and paid rent to the administration. Respondents demanded GST on rental periods including years before GST came into force on 8 July 2017. The court held tax could not be levied retrospectively for pre-implementation rent; liability attached only from 8 July 2017 onward under Sections 1 and 9 read with transitional Section 174. Outcome: in favour of the assessee for the pre-GST period. Relevant for government lease and land-allotment cases. Editorial summary; not legal advice. Dues for post-July 2017 rent remain payable with GST where applicable, separating valid current liability from invalid back demands.
In favour of the assessee
Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
Goutam Engineering Concern filed WPA No. 5150 of 2022 before the Calcutta High Court; judgment 14 September 2026. It performed electrical line repair and maintenance for West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., completing the work in 2015 before GST commenced. Billing and approval occurred in 2019; WBSEDCL withheld payment insisting on GST registration and tax invoices. The issue was the date of supply and whether completed pre-GST services could be taxed under CGST. The court held subsequent billing could not pull finished 2015 services into GST; withholding was wrongful. Payment was directed with interest, subject to deduction of any tax under the pre-GST regime. Outcome: assessee favoured. Sections 9 and 142 cited. Not legal advice. Government contractors should document completion dates and pre-GST invoices to resist post-facto GST demands on old works.
See the decision
Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises v. State Bank of India
Bhartiya Caterers and Enterprises filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court (WPC 4234/2026, 14 August 2026) against State Bank of India after its meal-supply tender bid was rejected despite quoting identical rates to another bidder, amid GST ambiguity on the contract. CGST Section 9 and Articles 226 and 14 were invoked. Post-bid offers and delay or unpaid-dues allegations did not establish illegality, arbitrariness or breach of tender terms. Judicial review under Article 226 ensures fair process, not merits revision or contract re-writing. The writ was dismissed on limited constitutional review grounds without examining whether GST inclusion affected rate comparability. Outcome: no relief on tender merits. GST practitioners advising on government tenders should separate tax clarification disputes from Article 226 challenges unless procedural unfairness is clearly shown.
In favour of the assessee
Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner
Smt. Lalitha S. filed Writ Petition No. 24040 of 2026 (LA-RES) before the Karnataka High Court; order 13 August 2026. Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land with an attached structure for highway widening was paid through the Deputy Commissioner, who deducted GST from the award. The petitioner challenged the deduction as ultra vires. The court held compulsory acquisition is not a supply of goods or services under GST; no statutory authority permits charging GST on expropriation compensation. Deduction was invalid and refund directed. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Sections 7 and 9 CGST and Article 366 were discussed. CAs advising on acquisition awards should note this limitation on GST levy. Not legal advice. Acquisition authorities must gross up compensation without treating GST as a deductible element unless a specific taxable supply exists.