GST INDIA Biz
GST India .biz — Case Law Details
Detailed GST Case Law Information

Vidarbha Beverages & Ors. vs. State Tax Officer & Ors.

Date of Order: February 13, 2026
Case Law No: GIB- SC-2026-30
Subject: GST liability on assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property; scope of “supply” (Sections 7 & 74, CGST Act, 2017 read with Schedule II & III)
Description:

Facts 
The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40,000 plus interest on transfer of leasehold rights in MIDC land. 
The petitioner had assigned leasehold rights for ₹3.30 crore with MIDC’s consent and paid additional premium. 
Authorities treated the transaction as “supply of services” under Section 7 read with Schedule II and classified it as taxable miscellaneous services. 
 
Court Decision
The Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and not a supply of services. 
It found that the transaction was neither lease nor sub-lease and the petitioner’s rights stood extinguished upon assignment. 
The activity lacked the essential element of being in the course or furtherance of business required under Section 7 of the CGST Act. 
Classification under “other miscellaneous services” was rejected as inapplicable. 
Accordingly, the show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed and set aside. 
 
Cases Referred
•    Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, (2025) 170  
 

Other Case Law

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Mysore Audit Commissionerate & Ors. vs. Sadguru Infratech Pvt Ltd.

Whether a writ court can direct the GST authorities to permit filing/amendment of returns while waiving interest, penalty and limitation under the GST Acts, and to refrain from precipitative action, in respect of the incremental tax burden arising from th

BackgroundThis is the Revenue's appeal against a Single Judge order dated 11.04....

Read More
A.G. and Sons HUF & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Whether an order passed under the CGST Act by an officer who did not personally conduct the hearing violates the principle of natural justice — specifically the maxim "he who hears must decide" — and whether such violation permits direct recourse to a

BackgroundAn impugned order dated 30th December 2025 was passed by Mr. Debjit Ba...

Read More
Infac India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

Refund of wrongly adjusted interest on transitional credit under GST regime (Sections 49(5), 50(3), 140, 142(3) – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 11B – Central Excise Act, 1944)

Facts :Petitioner wrongly transitioned balance from Personal Ledger Account as i...

Read More