Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate, Co-Founder & Legal Head, RB LawCorp
Published on: 24/07/2026
Introduction
The GST Council is the cornerstone of India’s cooperative federal tax framework. While it is constitutionally entrusted with making recommendations on GST, the power to issue notifications under the CGST Act rests with the Central Government. An important constitutional question, however, is whether the Government can travel beyond what the GST Council has actually recommended while exercising that delegated legislative power.
The recent judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Guru and Co. v. Union of India (2026-TIOL-854-HC-MAD-GST) examines this issue in considerable depth. The dispute arose from GST notifications relating to branded pulses, but the Court’s reasoning extends far beyond commodity classification. It addresses the constitutional relationship between the GST Council and the Government’s notification-making power, and clarifies whether the Council can subsequently “ratify” what it never originally recommended.
The Court answered both questions in the negative, laying down important principles that may significantly influence future challenges to GST notifications and subordinate legislation.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioners were traders dealing in pulses sold under brand names that were not registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Following amendments to the GST rate notifications, tax liability was extended to goods sold under a brand name where an “enforceable right in a court of law” existed, unless such rights had been voluntarily foregone in the prescribed manner.
The petitioners challenged these amendments, contending that the expression “enforceable right in a court of law” was never recommended by the GST Council and therefore could not validly find its place in the notification issued by the Government.
Issues Before the High Court
The Court was called upon to decide two significant constitutional questions:
- Whether the Central Government can issue notifications under Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act that go beyond the recommendations made by the GST Council.
- Whether the GST Council possesses any power to retrospectively ratify a notification after it has already been issued.
The High Court’s Analysis
Notifications Must Follow the GST Council’s Recommendation
The Court analysed Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution alongside Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., the Court observed that although GST Council recommendations are not binding upon Parliament while enacting legislation, they are binding upon the Government when exercising delegated legislative powers such as issuing notifications.
Accordingly, a notification must faithfully implement the recommendation made by the GST Council and cannot introduce conditions or expressions that were never recommended.
The Government Cannot Add What the Council Never Approved
Examining the minutes of the GST Council, the Court found that the expression “enforceable right in a court of law”, along with the accompanying Annexure, did not form part of the Council’s recommendation.
The Government had therefore travelled beyond the recommendation while issuing the impugned notifications.
To that extent, the notifications were held to be ultra vires the parent statute.
Ratification Is Not Recommendation
The Court also rejected the argument that the GST Council could subsequently validate the notification through ratification.
It held that Article 279A empowers the Council only to make recommendations. Neither the Constitution nor the CGST Act confers any power upon the Council to retrospectively ratify an executive action that lacked authority when originally undertaken.
A recommendation must precede the notification.
It cannot follow it.
Why the Judgment Matters
The decision carries significance far beyond the dispute involving branded pulses.
It reinforces the constitutional framework governing delegated legislation under GST and establishes that the Government’s notification-making power remains confined to the recommendations actually approved by the GST Council.
If a notification introduces conditions, restrictions or requirements that have no foundation in the Council’s recommendation, its validity itself may become open to challenge.
Implications for GST Litigation
The judgment may encourage taxpayers and practitioners to scrutinise GST notifications more closely by comparing them with the recommendations actually approved in GST Council meetings.
Where the two diverge, the notification itself may be vulnerable to challenge on the ground that it exceeds the authority conferred under Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act.
The ruling therefore has implications not only for exemption notifications but also for future amendments, rate notifications and other forms of delegated legislation issued under the GST regime.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court has reaffirmed an important constitutional principle: delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the authority from which it derives its legitimacy.
Under the GST framework, the Government may issue notifications, but those notifications must remain anchored to the recommendations of the GST Council. Where that link is broken, the notification risks losing its statutory foundation.
Whether this reasoning ultimately receives affirmation from the Supreme Court remains to be seen. For now, however, Guru and Co. stands as a significant reminder that the recommendation-notification chain is not a procedural formality—it is the very source of the Government’s authority to act under the GST law.
📎 Attached Article for Detailed Reading
📎 Full Published Version: https://taxindiaonline.com/news/guest_column/details?id=55208
(The author is a practicing advocate, Co-Founder and Legal Head of RB LawCorp.
He specializes in GST law. Suggestions or queries can be directed to
ashsharma@rblawcorp.in. The views expressed in this article are strictly
personal.)
