S.K. Swamy and Company, In re

In favour of the revenue

State of Karnataka v. Yogisha R

In Writ Appeal No. 1951 of 2025, the Karnataka High Court decided on 25 June 2026 whether writ courts may direct GST authorities to reimburse tax on state works contracts. Contractor Yogisha R had sought directions against the department of finance and tax officers. The Court reaffirmed that GST officers cannot be compelled to reimburse incremental tax; any pass-through claim arises only under the works contract with the government employer. Section 9 of the CGST Act governs levy, assessment, and recovery independently of tender language. Proper writ relief is to direct the employer department to consider representations for contractual reimbursement, not to bind GST administration. Appeal favoured the revenue on separation of remedies. This summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment and current notifications before advising clients on compliance steps.

State of Karnataka Department of Finance v. Unique Constructions

The State of Karnataka filed Writ Appeal No. 615 of 2025 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, decided 10 June 2026, against a single-judge order directing reimbursement of differential GST to contractors including Unique Constructions. Contractors executed government works contracts priced inclusive of pre-GST taxes but sought pass-through of GST levied after 1 July 2017 on balance work. The appellate Court held reimbursement is strictly contractual between employer and contractor; section 9 CGST liability cannot be modified by writ directions waiving interest, penalty, limitation, or mandating revised returns before tax authorities. Directions binding GST authorities were set aside while employer-only reimbursement directions were clarified. Appeal largely favoured the revenue. Important for government contractor billing post-GST. Not legal advice.

In favour of the revenue

Indian Wire Products Company, In re

On appeal, the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (Appeal Case No. 02/WBAAAR/APPEAL/2026, 10 July 2026) considered Indian Wire Products Company’s restaurant model involving supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah flavours through hookah apparatus alongside food and beverages. The issue was whether such supplies were composite restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II and Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), or separate supplies of goods. The AAAR held that merely bundling hookah flavours with restaurant facilities did not bring those flavour supplies within the restaurant service entry; they remained supplies of goods to be classified and rated under applicable goods notifications, with Sections 7, 8 and 9 CGST governing scope and levy. Outcome favoured revenue’s characterisation as non-restaurant service supplies. Operators mixing hookah retail with dining should treat flavour supplies as goods unless facts differ materially.

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd., In re

Chehar Industry (P.) Ltd. approached the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (4 August 2026) as a manufacturer-trader of bar- or cake-form laundry soaps used for washing clothes and textiles, seeking correct HSN classification and GST rate. The bench (Members Malani and Vora) distinguished these products from toilet soaps by composition and end use. It held them classifiable as laundry soaps under sub-heading 34011 and taxable at 18% under Entry No. 66 of Schedule-II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 September 2025, read with Sections 9 and 10 CGST on levy and composition where relevant. The ruling gives CAs a clear product-based line between laundry and toilet soap categories for rate purposes. Facts are limited to the applicant’s stated manufacturing pattern; other formulations may need separate rulings.

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.