Levy Collection case laws
Look up GST High Court, GSTAT, and advance-ruling decisions by topic — with a complete summary for each matter and the source judgment PDF when you need the full text.
6 rulings
Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union Srinagar Dood Ganga v. Union Territory of J And K
In favour of the assessee
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.
Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
In favour of the assessee
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.
Smt. Lalitha S. v. Deputy Commissioner
In favour of the assessee
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.
State of Tamil Nadu v. I. Vetrivel
In favour of the revenue
The State of Tamil Nadu filed tax revision petitions in TCR(MD) Nos. 23–30 of 2024 before the Madras High Court; decision 9 July 2026. The dispute concerned purchase tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and TN VAT on sand, gravel and jelly bought from unregistered dealers for use in works contracts. A Constitution Bench precedent supports such levy on goods not previously tax-suffered. The first appellate authority and Tribunal had annulled assessments; the High Court found those orders perverse and restored purchase tax under Section 7-A, holding it operates independently of Section 3-B on transfer of property in works contracts. Outcome: in favour of revenue. Pre-GST but relevant to works-contract material sourcing. Not legal advice. Contractors sourcing aggregates from unregistered quarries in Tamil Nadu remain exposed to purchase tax despite works-contract characterisation debates.
SDE Engineers Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
SDE Engineers Ltd. pursued T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008 before the Telangana High Court; judgment 3 July 2026 (pre-GST sales tax). The assessee leased tech-park premises with amenities and furniture to IT companies under composite agreements described as permission to use without transfer of possession or exclusive control; common facilities were shared. The Commercial Tax Officer treated receipts as taxable transfer of right to use goods. The court held no TRUG occurred; consideration arose from service-style permission to use space and facilities, not a sale of goods under VAT Section 4. Orders annulling tax were restored; outcome for assessee. Article 366 definitions informed analysis. Useful historical precedent for composite lease structuring. Not legal advice. Modern co-working and fitted-office leases may analogise to this permission-to-use analysis when assessing legacy VAT exposure.
Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of gst Intelligence, Chennai
In favour of the revenue
Renaatus Projects (P.) Ltd. filed W.A. No. 190 of 2026 before the Madras High Court; decision 23 June 2026. A GST-registered contractor in Tamil Nadu executed construction of a Supreme Court building at Port Louis, Mauritius, funded under a Government of India grant. DGGI issued a show-cause notice alleging taxable supply linked to India through procurement and financial consolidation. The company sought writ quashing as without jurisdiction. The division bench held the challenge premature: whether IGST Sections 7 and 12 treat the arrangement as supply in India requires factual examination, not a patent jurisdictional defect. Writ appeal dismissed; outcome for revenue. CGST definitions in Section 2 and Section 7 were also referenced. Not legal advice. Offshore construction under foreign grants may still face IGST scrutiny if Indian nexus is pleaded; respondents may contest facts at adjudication.