Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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