The Supreme Court is set to examine an important goods and services tax dispute concerning whether a government-granted right to collect toll can constitute non-monetary consideration for construction services supplied by a private concessionaire.
The controversy has potentially significant implications for public-private partnership projects across the country. Its outcome could affect the manner in which developers price bids, structure project financing and estimate returns in sectors such as highways, airports, ports, mining and other public infrastructure developed through concession agreements.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: when the government does not pay a contractor directly in money but instead grants it a commercially valuable right, can that right be treated as consideration for a taxable supply under the GST law?
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Compilation – August 2026
Rajasthan High Court Treated Toll Rights as Consideration
The dispute arose in the case of CG Tollway v. Union of India, in which the Rajasthan High Court reportedly held that CG Tollway had supplied taxable works-contract services to the National Highways Authority of India.
According to the ruling, the concessionaire received commercially valuable rights in return for undertaking the project, particularly the right to collect toll from road users. The High Court consequently treated the arrangement as one involving barter or an exchange of supplies.
The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, giving the apex court an opportunity not merely to decide the particular dispute but also to clarify the principles governing concession agreements under GST.
The issue extends well beyond road projects. Governments frequently develop public infrastructure through arrangements under which private entities construct, operate or maintain assets and are compensated through commercial rights rather than conventional cash payments. If such rights are characterised as consideration for construction services, developers may have to account for additional GST liabilities while preparing bids and financial projections.
GST Law Recognises Non-Monetary Consideration
Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act recognises different forms of taxable supplies, including barter and exchange. Section 2(31), which defines “consideration”, covers payment made in money or otherwise.
The statutory framework therefore makes it clear that GST cannot necessarily be avoided merely because payment does not take the form of cash. A valuable commercial entitlement granted in return for a supply may, depending on the contractual arrangement, qualify as non-monetary consideration.
However, the existence of commercial value by itself may not be sufficient to establish taxable consideration. The crucial inquiry is whether the benefit was actually conferred in return for the identified supply.
This distinction between reciprocal value and consideration is central to the toll-right dispute. Two elements in a commercial agreement may have economic value without necessarily constituting payment for one another.
Toll, Toll-Collection Rights and Annuity Are Legally Distinct
A major issue before the Court will be the need to distinguish between three concepts: the toll paid by road users, the concessionaire’s right to collect toll and an annuity paid by the government.
A toll is ordinarily paid by a motorist for using a road. The legal right to collect that toll, however, belongs to the concessionaire under the terms of the concession agreement. An annuity, on the other hand, is generally a deferred monetary payment made by the authority to remunerate the developer.
In an annuity-based project model, the National Highways Authority of India makes deferred payments to the concessionaire. Although an annuity and a toll-collection right may perform broadly similar economic functions by enabling the developer to recover its investment, they are not necessarily identical in law.
The private concessionaire’s earnings from toll collections may depend on traffic volume, the duration of the concession, financing costs, maintenance responsibilities and tariff regulations. These uncertainties distinguish a toll right from a fixed or deferred monetary payment.
Consequently, the economic function of a toll right cannot automatically determine its GST treatment. The precise contractual relationship between the parties and the purpose for which the right was granted will have to be examined.
Toll Exemption Does Not Automatically Resolve the Dispute
The exemption available to toll collections does not, by itself, answer whether the right to collect toll can constitute consideration for a separately identifiable construction or works-contract supply.
The taxable event identified by the authorities may not be the collection of toll from motorists. Instead, the Revenue’s case may concern the construction service allegedly supplied by the concessionaire to NHAI and the toll-collection right received in return.
This makes it necessary to separate the exempt transaction involving motorists from the contractual arrangement between the project developer and the government authority.
At the same time, an entire concession agreement cannot be treated as a single economic mass merely because it contains interconnected obligations. A concession arrangement commonly includes access to the project site, rights of way, operating permissions, toll rights, construction duties, maintenance requirements and several regulatory obligations.
Each component must be examined in its proper contractual setting before the arrangement is labelled as barter.
Key Questions Before Treating Concession as Barter
The first question is the precise nature of the alleged taxable supply. The authorities must identify the supply, its supplier and its recipient. A concession agreement may contain several rights and obligations, and it cannot be characterised as one indivisible economic transaction without examining its individual components.
The second question concerns the benefit allegedly constituting the price of that supply. The term “concession” may be too broad where the contractual package includes site access, operating permissions, rights of way, toll-collection rights and continuing maintenance responsibilities.
The third question is whether the toll-collection right was conferred specifically in return for the construction service. It must be determined whether the right represented the quid pro quo for the alleged taxable supply or was granted merely to make the project commercially viable.
Commercial usefulness alone may not establish consideration. The right or benefit must have been granted in respect of, in response to or as an inducement for the particular supply sought to be taxed.
The fourth question concerns the direction in which value moves under the agreement. Where a private party makes payments to the government for obtaining a concession, that contractual allocation cannot be ignored. Each monetary payment and non-monetary benefit must be separately identified before treating the overall arrangement as a barter transaction.
The fifth question is whether the toll right is being confused with the revenue it may ultimately generate. A right to collect toll is not equivalent to every rupee that may later be collected from motorists. It merely creates an opportunity to earn revenue, subject to commercial risks and contractual obligations.
Comparable commercial rights are not ordinarily valued by equating them with the entire future revenue stream. For instance, a restaurant licence cannot automatically be valued at every rupee the restaurant may earn from its customers. Similarly, the value of a toll-collection right may not necessarily be the same as the concessionaire’s gross toll receipts.
The sixth question relates to valuation. A right can be assigned a taxable value only after it is first established that the right amounts to consideration for the particular supply under examination. Valuation answers how much that consideration is worth; it cannot determine whether consideration legally exists in the first place.
Tax Liability Cannot Be Derived Backwards From Valuation
The dispute also raises a broader principle relating to the sequence in which tax liability must be determined. Tax authorities cannot begin with a convenient valuation figure and work backwards to identify the transaction that is supposedly being taxed.
The taxable supply must first be established. The authorities must then identify the person liable, determine the applicable tax rate and apply the legally prescribed valuation mechanism.
Accordingly, gross toll collections cannot automatically become the taxable value merely because they are easily measurable. The relationship between the toll right and the alleged construction supply must first be demonstrated under the GST law and the terms of the concession agreement.
Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect PPP Financing
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue is expected to be closely watched by infrastructure developers, government authorities, lenders and tax professionals.
If government-granted earning rights are broadly treated as consideration for construction or development services, private concessionaires may have to factor additional GST costs into project bids. This could alter financing assumptions and anticipated returns, particularly in long-term projects where revenue depends on traffic, usage levels or other commercial variables.
Conversely, a ruling requiring a direct and demonstrable link between the alleged supply and the right granted in return could provide greater certainty to developers operating under concession-based models.
The case therefore presents a larger question about the GST treatment of public infrastructure agreements: whether a commercially valuable right granted by the government is itself sufficient to establish consideration, or whether the Revenue must prove that the right was specifically conferred as payment for an identified taxable supply.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could provide an important framework for distinguishing taxable barter transactions from contractual rights intended merely to enable the performance and commercial viability of public infrastructure projects.
