Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  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.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  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.  

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