S. Thiruvenkadam v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
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.
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.
- Constitution Art.243W — Constitution Art.243W as considered in the ruling.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
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.
In favour of the revenue
Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 10213 of 2025, judgment dated 29 September 2026) declined to interfere at the show-cause stage in proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Rules 101 and 142. Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd., a medicine distributor, challenged a show cause notice and the appropriation of amounts deposited during audit, alleging coercion, limitation errors, incorrect computation, and lack of jurisdiction. The bench held that statutory adjudication had already commenced and the notice had not finally determined tax liability. Objections—including whether payment was voluntary—were matters for the adjudicating authority after reply and hearing. Premature writ relief was unwarranted. The outcome favoured the revenue; the assessee was left to pursue its defences in the pending adjudication.
In favour of the revenue
Lichfl Care Homes Ltd. v. Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
LICHFL Care Homes Ltd. sought writ relief before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 13665 of 2026, 28 September 2026) against anti-profiteering findings on a residential project. Section 171 CGST requires passing ITC or rate benefit to buyers. On remand, the DGAP had quantified benefit using purchase value against project cost with area-wise distribution, conforming to remand directions and differing from an earlier rejected method. The High Court (Jain and Kshetarpal JJ) found no jurisdictional error in the GSTAT order upholding that report and declined interference. Outcome favoured revenue. Remanded anti-profiteering proceedings must follow directed methodology; courts defer to GSTAT when remand terms are met. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. Union of India
Joydeb Karmakar challenged before the Calcutta High Court (24 September 2026, WPA No. 10299 of 2026) the cancellation of his GST registration for not updating bank details after separating from a joint account, with no allegation of fraud or evasion. The department had treated the stale bank mapping as grounds for cancellation under Section 29 rather than as a correctable registration defect. The issue was whether such an administrative lapse warranted cancellation without a curative opportunity and without examining whether the taxpayer continued to conduct genuine business. The Court treated the defect as rectifiable under Rules 10A and 21 read with Sections 29 and 30, emphasizing that cancellation is a drastic remedy where particulars can be updated on the portal. Cancellation was quashed subject to the assessee proving bona fides, filing pending returns and clearing dues for restoration. Outcome: assessee-favourable with remand and compliance conditions. One opportunity to correct particulars was held warranted where misconduct was not alleged. Editorial summary; not legal advice.