Introduction
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (‘HC’) issued a significant order in the case of Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India[i]*, *staying the operation of the GST circular pertaining to the taxability of ‘corporate guarantees (‘CGs’) by a person on behalf of another related person or holding company for sanctioning of credit facilities to its subsidiary company’, as it infringed upon the adjudicatory powers of the assessing authority as well as appellate authority.
Facts
M/s Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘Petitioner’) filed a writ petition before the HC, challenging the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) Circular dt. 27.10.2023[ii] (‘Circular’), through which the CBIC clarified the issue of the taxability of CGs.
The Petitioner contended that the Circular infringed upon the powers of adjudication of the assessing and appellate authorities by clarifying essentially adjudicative provisions. Aggrieved by such overreach, the Petitioner approached the HC.
Held
The HC stayed the operation of the aforementioned Circular and directed the appellate authority to proceed with the adjudication of the Petitioner’s case without being prejudiced by the Circular issued by CBIC. Further, while noting CBIC’s jurisdictional outreach, the HC observed that the Circular directly called into question the powers of the appellate authority, negating the purpose of filing an appeal.
Our Analysis
The stay order issued by the HC is a significant affirmation of the importance of maintaining clear jurisdictional boundaries within tax governance. By addressing the CBIC’s overreach into the adjudicatory powers of the appellate authority, the HC not only safeguards the procedural rights of the assessee but also upholds the integrity of judicial review mechanisms. This case highlights the complexities involved in the taxability of CGs—a matter with substantial economic implications that can affect the financial fluidity and credit structuring within corporate groups. Given the potential for such interpretations to impact economic behaviour and corporate planning, it is crucial that jurisdictional clarity is maintained and that regulatory bodies do not encroach upon the rights of taxpayers without proper judicial oversight. This judgment may prompt a more cautious approach by regulatory authorities in the future, ensuring that their directives do not exceed statutory limitations.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 162 taxmann.com 151 (Punjab & Haryana)[03-05-2024]
[ii] Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST, dated 27.10.2023
Authored by Anshi Bhatia, 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.