Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 14/10/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Gujarat Co‑operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (the petitioner, popularly known as “Amul”) versus Union of India & others (the respondents).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 7085 of 2025) seeking quashment of Order‑in‑Original No. 74/CGST/(AhmedabadSouth)/ADC/PBM/24‑25 dated 01.01.2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner of CGST, Ahmedabad South.
  • Relief Sought: Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any appropriate order to set aside the GST demand of Rs 43,43,12,441 (IGST) along with interest and penalty, and to provide consequential reliefs.
  • Background Facts:
  • The Federation is an apex co‑operative marketing body for milk producers in Gujarat, operating the “Amul” brand.
  • Head Office (HO) is located at Anand; it holds an Input Service Distributor (ISD) GST registration for the HO and a common GST registration for all branches/depos in Gujarat.
  • Between July 2017 and March 2019 the Federation incurred corporate expenses (advertising, IT, SAP maintenance, legal fees, salaries, etc.) at the HO without allocating them to branches via cross‑charging.
  • Respondent authorities treated each branch as a “distinct person” under Section 25(4) of the CGST Act and issued a show‑cause‑cum‑demand notice on 31.08.2022, invoking Section 74 for alleged fraud/evasion.
  • The petitioner replied on 13.09.2022, explaining the nature of services and referencing CBIC Circular No. 199/11/2023‑GST (dated 17.07.2023) and Circular No. 210/4/2024‑GST (dated 26.06.2024) which clarify valuation of intra‑group services.
  • The adjudicating authority nonetheless confirmed an IGST demand of Rs 43,43,12,441 under Section 74.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions:
  • Cited Delhi High Court judgment in Metal One Corp. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2024) which quashed similar demands based on the same CBIC circulars.
  • Argued that cross‑charging is an internal accounting practice, not a statutory requirement, and that no separate GST registrations exist for Gujarat branches, rendering Section 25(4) inapplicable.
  • Emphasised that no tax invoices were issued to branches; under the circulars the value of such services should be deemed “Nil”.
  • Contended that Section 74 was invoked without any evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
  • Revenue’s Submissions:
  • Asserted that the petitioner deliberately avoided cross‑charging to evade GST.
  • Maintained that from 01.04.2019 the Federation began allocating expenses and treating them as taxable supplies.
  • Stated that the petitioner holds separate GST registrations for branches outside Gujarat, making them distinct persons.
  • Relied on valuation rules (Rules 28, 30, 31 CGST Rules) and argued that IGST paid by the HO should have been passed as ITC to branches, which the petitioner retained.
  • Invoked the extended limitation period under Section 74 based on DGGI investigation.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the respondent authorities erred in treating the HO and Gujarat branches as distinct persons for GST purposes, as no separate GST registrations exist in Gujarat.
  • The Court accepted the CBIC circulars’ position that services for which no tax invoice is issued have a nil taxable value, thereby eliminating any GST liability.
  • It further observed that the adjudicating authority failed to demonstrate any fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts required to invoke Section 74.
  • Consequently, the Order‑in‑Original dated 01.01.2025 demanding Rs 43,43,12,441 IGST, interest and penalty was quashed and set aside.
  • The judgment is signed by Hon. Justice A.S. Supehia and Hon. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati on 14/10/2026.

Topics: GST, Tax Litigation, Judicial Review