Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTGST on Corporate Guarantees for Pre-2023 Period Faces Judicial Scrutiny: Madras High...

GST on Corporate Guarantees for Pre-2023 Period Faces Judicial Scrutiny: Madras High Court Stays Demand Orders

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to taxpayers by staying GST demand orders imposing tax on the provision of corporate guarantees, observing that the challenge raises important questions regarding the retrospective application of Rule 28(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules and the valuation of corporate guarantee transactions where the recipient is entitled to full Input Tax Credit (ITC). 

The interim order was passed by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in a batch of writ petitions filed against the Commercial Tax Officer. 

The petitions challenged GST demand orders levying tax on corporate guarantees extended by the petitioner company to related entities. A principal contention raised before the Court was that sub-rule (2) of Rule 28 of the CGST Rules—which specifically prescribes the valuation mechanism for corporate guarantees between related persons—was introduced only with effect from 26 October 2023. Since the impugned demand orders related to periods prior to the introduction of the provision, the petitioner argued that the authorities could not retrospectively apply the amended valuation rule. 

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

Apart from the issue of retrospective applicability, the petitioner also contended that the recipients of the corporate guarantee services were entitled to full Input Tax Credit (ITC). Consequently, the invoice value declared by the parties ought to have been accepted for valuation purposes under the GST framework, instead of adopting an alternative valuation methodology leading to enhanced tax demands. 

After considering these submissions, the bench found that the issues raised warranted judicial examination. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the dispute, the Court granted an interim stay on the operation of the impugned GST orders as well as all consequential proceedings arising from them. 

The Court directed that the interim protection shall continue until the next date of hearing and listed the batch of writ petitions for 24 August 2026.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: GST Recovery Before 3 Month Statutory Period Requires Justifiable Revenue Risk: Madras High Court Stays Recovery Notice

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 11, 2026.GSTMANUFACTURE OR TRADING STATUS IRRELEVANT FOR...

Front-of-Pack Food Warning Labels Must Be Clear, Prominent and Scientifically Justified: Supreme Court Asks FSSAI to Clarify Proposal

The Supreme Court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)...

DRI | 3 Years’ Custody and Slow Trial Alone Can’t Override NDPS Bail Bar in Commercial Quantity Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has refused regular bail to a 70-year-old man accused of...

Rs. 22.44 Crore Customs Duty Evasion Case Involving Alleged Routing of Chinese Steel Pipes Through Thailand: Mumbai Court Grants Bail

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Esplanade, Mumbai, has granted bail to a businessman...

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for September 11, 2026.GSTMANUFACTURE OR TRADING STATUS IRRELEVANT FOR...

Front-of-Pack Food Warning Labels Must Be Clear, Prominent and Scientifically Justified: Supreme Court Asks FSSAI to Clarify Proposal

The Supreme Court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)...

DRI | 3 Years’ Custody and Slow Trial Alone Can’t Override NDPS Bail Bar in Commercial Quantity Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has refused regular bail to a 70-year-old man accused of...