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
HomeGSTMuthoot Finance to Contest Rs. 1.52 Crore GST Demand from Kerala Tax...

Muthoot Finance to Contest Rs. 1.52 Crore GST Demand from Kerala Tax Dept.

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Muthoot Finance, one of India’s leading non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), is preparing to challenge a tax demand issued by the Kerala State GST Department amounting to Rs. 1.52 crore. 

The demand stems from a dispute over the taxation of corporate guarantees provided to a subsidiary, a claim the company strongly denies.

Breakdown of the GST Demand

The total tax liability demanded by the authorities includes:

  • Tax: ₹54.00 lakh
  • Interest: ₹44.22 lakh
  • Penalty: ₹54.00 lakh

The tax department alleges that corporate guarantees extended by Muthoot Finance to its subsidiary are subject to GST under current regulations. However, the company’s arguments — citing misclassification, principles of valuation, and the fact that the guarantee was not utilized — were dismissed by the adjudicating officer.

Company’s Position

Muthoot Finance has expressed firm disagreement with the order. In its official disclosure to the stock exchanges under SEBI’s Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR), the company clarified that it is in the process of filing an appeal. The order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Adjudication-1) in Ernakulam.

Despite the scale of the demand, Muthoot Finance has assured stakeholders that the order will not materially impact its financial, operational, or business activities.

Read More: GST Levy by Clubs: Supreme Court Stays Recovery Against IMA

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

Multiple Notices on Same PAN and 26AS Receipts Without Verification: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 2.31 Crore Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a...

Calls Grow for GST Portal to Introduce Dedicated Anti-Corruption Grievance Mechanism With Protection Against Victimisation

The introduction of a dedicated facility on the Income Tax e-Filing Portal for reporting...

Entire Tooling Advance Can’t Be Added to Assessable Value; Only Proportionate Amortised Cost Is Includible: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Inspection Forming Only Part of Wider Engineering Assignment Can’t Determine Service Classification: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that an...

More like this

Multiple Notices on Same PAN and 26AS Receipts Without Verification: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 2.31 Crore Service Tax Demand

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a...

Calls Grow for GST Portal to Introduce Dedicated Anti-Corruption Grievance Mechanism With Protection Against Victimisation

The introduction of a dedicated facility on the Income Tax e-Filing Portal for reporting...

Entire Tooling Advance Can’t Be Added to Assessable Value; Only Proportionate Amortised Cost Is Includible: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...