GST INDIA Biz — GST liability on assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property; scope of “supply” (Sections 7 & 74, CGST Act, 2017 read with Schedule II & III)

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

Date of Order: February 13, 2026

Case Law No: GIB- BHC-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

Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Whether clandestine/illicit removal of excisable goods can be established and duty demand sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements, in the absence of corroborating positive evidence such as excess raw material purchase, shortage

BACKGROUNDThe assessee, a manufacturer of CTD/Round bars, was subjected to simul...

Commissioner of Trade and Tax, Delhi v. Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd.

Entitlement of Input Tax Credit to purchasing dealer despite non-deposit of tax by selling dealer under DVAT (Section involved: Section 9(1) and Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004)

Facts The issue before the Court was whether purchasing dealers who paid ta...

SIDDHI VINAYAK AUTOMOBILES v. COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Validity of penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Acts, 2017 for transportation without an e-way bill at the time of interception. Whether an order passed beyond the mandatory seven-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) is legally sustainable

BACKGROUNDAutomobile spare parts were transported under e-invoices, but the vehi...