Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT. *  Services to singapore head office not ‘Intermediary Services’: CESTAT. *  Satellite transponder capacity received from foreign providers not taxable as business support service: CESTAT *  Sugar export ban upheld: Bombay High Court says private contracts and advance payments can’t override govt. policy. *  No CA or CMA certification required for interest on already-sanctioned GST refund: Telangana High Court. *  GST demand order uploaded only on common portal doesn’t trigger appeal limitation: Delhi High Court. *  GST refund can’t remain locked in ITC when business has closed: Allahabad High Court. *  Sec. 129 Penalty can’t be imposed on stock transfer without e-way bill: GSTAT. *  Subsequent supplier’s GST registration cancellation by itself, doesn’t establish fraudulent ITC availment: Karnataka High Court. *  DGGI Jaipur | Rajasthan High Court denies bail in central excise duty evasion case, cites seriousness of alleged unregistered tobacco Manufacturing. *  Dept. can’t force assessee to adopt more punitive CENVAT credit option under rule 6: Calcutta High Court. *  GST levy on corporate guarantees upheld: Gujarat High Court. *  Calcutta High Court allows appeal against Ex-parte GST order after medical emergencies prevented reply to SCN. *  Legality of gold confiscation based on retracted statement questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court frames 8 substantial questions of law. *  Interest on delayed duty drawback runs from 1month after ‘Let Export Order’, not final adjudication: Delhi High Court. *  High Courts can’t grant post-dismissal arrest protection in GST pre-arrest bail matters; Sec. 69 arrest order must be communicated: Supreme Court. *  Whether RERA registration can determine GST classification of ‘Ongoing Project’: Rajasthan High Court issues stay notice. *  GSTAT admits Bharti Airtel’s appeal on ITC dispute involving section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act. *  Showroom interior fit-outs constitutes “Original Works”, CESTAT quashes ?2.61 crore service tax demand. *  CESTAT upholds extended limitation for inadmissible CENVAT credit availed during area-based exemption. *  Refund can’t be denied merely for not challenging Bill of entry when exempt duty was paid inadvertently: Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Subject News *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure. *  Madras High court stays GST recovery initiated under section. 79 without prior determination under section 73. *  GST Dept. must establish deliberate tax evasion before using extended limitation: GSTAT. *  GST officers can’t keep business premises sealed after search ends: Gauhati High Court. *  GST adjudication order ignoring CBIC circular challenged: Bombay HC grants ad-interim protection to Skoda Auto Volkswagen. *  Alleged evidentiary errors, cross-examination issues, earlier GST audit questions must be raised before Appellate authority: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected on erroneous limitation calculation: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Adjudication and Appellate orders passed without supplying seized documents to assessee quashed: Bombay High Court stays coercive GST recovery. *  GST search without sharing DIN violates transparency safeguards, but doesn’t invalidate search: Madras High Court. *  Statutory GST appeal can’t be circumvented by mere natural justice allegations: Bombay HC. *  Whether banks can simultaneously avail ITC u/s 17(2) and 17(4)? - Madras High Court stays GST adjudication against City Union Bank. *  Driver’s statement on plain paper has ‘Very Little Evidentiary Value’: Allahabad High Court quashes GST penalty order. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied on duty-paid inputs from area-based exempt units: CESTAT. *  Ignoring taxpayer’s reply while rejecting GST refund is illegal: Bombay High Court. *  Dept. can’t allege suppression after earlier audit on same issue: CESTAT quashes Excise demand on limitation. *  Sales-tax concession cannot be denied unless government notification is expressly rescinded: Telangana High Court.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update / 2026-27/0073

Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST (ST-Intelligence), Trichy Division & Anr

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST (ST-Intelligence), Trichy Division & Anr
Petition No. & Citation: SLP (C) Nos. 17945-17948 of 2026
Hon’ble Judge(s)  
Date of Order 16 July 2026
Outcome Issue left Open
 

Brief Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the issue before the Supreme Court concerned the levy of GST on affiliation fees collected by the University from its affiliated institutions for the financial years 2019-20 to 2022-23. The GST authorities had issued a show cause notice under Section 74(5) of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, proposing GST along with applicable interest and penalties on such affiliation fees. The University contested the levy by relying upon Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and contending that educational and regulatory levies of this nature do not constitute a commercial “supply” or “consideration” for GST purposes. The controversy arose because different Benches of the Madras High Court had taken conflicting views on the issue. Consequently, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for consideration. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the service of granting affiliation is an independent statutory pre-requisite and falls outside the restricted scope of services relating to “admissions to, or conduct of examination by, an educational institution.” After answering the reference, the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge for deciding the remaining issues.
Aggrieved, the University approached the Supreme Court.

Relevant Notification

Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R)

Question before Hon’ble Court

Whether affiliation fees collected by a University from its affiliated institutions are liable to GST, particularly whether the activity of granting affiliation can be treated as a taxable supply or whether it falls within the exemption available to educational institutions under the GST exemption notification.

Arguments before the Supreme Court

The University approached the Supreme Court pointing out that there were conflicting decisions of various High Courts on the taxability of affiliation fees. It was also submitted that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed a departmental appeal arising from a Karnataka High Court decision which had held that the exemption was available even in respect of affiliation fees. The University therefore requested for the clarification on the recurring issue, which would have significant financial implications for universities across the country as the issue was interpretational industry wide.

Findings and Judgement

The Supreme Court did not finally decide the question of GST exemption on affiliation fees. The Court observed that its earlier order dated 24 January 2025, whereby an SLP filed by the Department had been dismissed, did not result in merger of the High Court judgment with the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court therefore permitted the matter to proceed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in relation to the residual issues. It specifically observed that, after the Single Judge decides the matter, the University would be at liberty to challenge any order prejudicial to it, along with the Division Bench's decision on the reference, before the Supreme Court. Hence, the issue was left open.

 

CA Pradeep Jain_ 

This is solely for educational purpose
Readers can also access this from our 
Linkedin account : www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16 

Opinion

Author’s Comment

The Supreme Court has not finally settled the GST liability on affiliation fees in this order. The controversy in this matter is not merely about whether affiliation fees are taxable; it also highlights the difficulty faced by educational institutions in determining their GST liability where the exemption provisions are capable of more than one interpretation. The Madras High Court itself recognised that there were conflicting judicial views on the very same issue. One line of judicial reasoning considered affiliation to be integrally connected with admission and conduct of examinations and therefore deserving of exemption, whereas the other view treated affiliation as an independent service outside the specific wording of the exemption notification following the principle that the exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly. This view was adopted by the Division Bench.
However, in our opinion, considering the direct and intrinsic nexus with education, affiliation provided by a university to a college should, in principle, be treated as part of the educational function of the university and should not be subjected to GST merely because the university charges a separate affiliation fee. Where affiliation determines the eligibility of a college to admit students to university courses, enables students of that college to appear for university examinations and ultimately facilitates the award of university-recognised degrees, it has direct connection with admissions.
However, the industry continues to await the final outcome from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and until the issue is conclusively settled, it remains an interpretational matter; in any event, such a bona fide interpretational dispute should not, by itself, warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation and heavier penalties.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com