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 Dilemma After Supreme Court Classifies 'Mortgagor' As 'Guarantor' 

GST Dilemma After Supreme Court Classifies ‘Mortgagor’ As ‘Guarantor’ 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court has classified ‘Mortgagor’ as ‘Guarantor’.

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal has observed that if after the sale of hypothecated assets, there is any shortfall in the discharge of the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor is under an obligation to pay the shortfall or deficiency. Therefore, the Corporate Debtor, who is not the borrower, agreed to discharge the liability of the third parties in the case of default. Therefore, it amounts to a guarantee provided by the Corporate Debtor to the appellants in terms of Section 126 of the Contract Act.

The bench held that the mortgagor, who was not a direct borrower, assumed the responsibility of discharging the liability of third parties in the event of their default. This obligation to pay the shortfall was deemed a guarantee.

‘Mortgagor’ As ‘Guarantor’ : GST Implications & Confusion

No GST is applicable on mortgage. However, the GST on corporate guarantees is 18%, with an HSN Code of 999799. GST on corporate guarantee is calculated as 1% of the guarantee amount if no fee is charged or on the actual fee when one exists.

The Supreme Court’s ruling classifies the transaction as both a mortgage and a guarantee, but GST applicability requires further examination. This raises questions about GST implications for such transactions, especially in corporate guarantee arrangements.

Read More: 6% Excise Duty Payable On Railway Diesel Locomotive: CESTAT

Case Details

Case Title: China Development Bank versus Doha Bank Q.P.S.C. & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7298 Of 2022

Date: 20/12/2024

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

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...

18% GST On New Water Pipeline Construction: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has ruled that works involving the...

More like this

DRC-01 Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: GSTAT  

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Division Bench, has delivered a...

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 14 SEPTEMBER, 2026

Here’s the Tax Law Daily Bulletin for  September 14, 2026.GSTGST DEPT. CANT ADJUST SANCTIONED...

No GST On Recovery Of Electricity Charges At Actual Cost Without Markup: AAR

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (WBAAR) has held that electricity charges recovered...