Introduction
The taxability of shares held in a subsidiary company by a holding company has been a matter of concern, previously falling under the category of 'supply of services,' as covered by the Services Accounting Code (‘SAC’) 997171. SAC entry 997171 pertains to services provided by holding companies, i.e., holding securities (including shares) of companies and enterprises for the purpose of maintaining a controlling interest. Consequently, demand notices were issued to holding companies. To address this issue, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) released Circular No. 196/08/2023-GST dated 17th July 2023, providing crucial clarification on the taxability of such shareholdings under the Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) regime. The primary objective of this circular is to determine whether the holding of shares in a subsidiary company by the parent company constitutes a ‘supply of service’ and, consequently, whether such activity attracts GST.
Clarification:
This circular puts forth the following clarifications:
Securities are neither goods nor services: The term ‘securities’ is defined under s. 2(h)[i] of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (‘SCRA’) to include shares. Consequently, the circular states that securities do not fall within the definitions of ‘goods’ or ‘services’ as provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax (‘CGST’) Act, 2017. Specifically, as per s. 2(52)[ii] of the CGST Act, goods are defined, and s. 2(102)[iii] of the same Act defines the term services. Since securities do not fit into either of these definitions, they are not considered goods or services for GST purposes.
Purchase or sale of shares does not constitute supply of goods or services: The circular emphasizes that the mere purchase or sale of shares or securities by a holding company in a subsidiary company does not qualify as supply of goods or services. To be considered a supply of services under GST, a transaction must meet the criteria outlined in s. 7 of the CGST Act. Without fulfilling these conditions, a transaction cannot be categorized as a supply of services.
Based on these clarifications, CBIC concludes that the activity of holding shares in a subsidiary company by the holding company, cannot be treated as supply of services. As a result, this activity will not be subject to GST.
Conclusion:
In light of the clarifications provided by CBIC, it is now conclusively determined that the activity of holding shares in a subsidiary company by a holding company does not constitute the supply of services. Accordingly, it shall not be subject to GST. This clarification brings much-needed certainty to the tax treatment of such shareholding arrangements and relieves holding companies from the burden of GST demands that were previously imposed on them under the assumption of it being a 'supply of services.' Any difficulties faced by stakeholders in the implementation of this circular are encouraged to promptly bring them to the attention of CBIC. This circular ensures uniformity in the implementation of the law across different field formations, providing clarity to businesses and promoting compliance with the GST regulations.
End Notes:
[i] Section 2 of SCRA, 1956:(h) “Securities” include:
(i) Shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other marketable securities of a like nature in or of any incorporated company or other body corporate;
[ii] Section 2 of CGST Act, 2017:
(52) "goods" means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply.
[iii] Section 2 of CGST Act, 2017:
(102) "services" means anything other than goods, money and securities but includes activities relating to the use of money or its conversion by cash or by any other mode, from one form, currency, or denomination to another form, currency, or denomination for which a separate consideration is charged.
*Authored by Nitish Solanki, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion. *
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.