SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ola Parent ANI's Plea Against Delayed Service Tax Order
Case Title : ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 3185/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 33
The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pursue a statutory appeal against a service tax demand. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no valid ground was made out to disturb the High Court's decision. The court agreed that the writ petition was rightly not entertained.
Supreme Court Allows ₹2.9 Crore GST Refund On Coal To SAIL, Rejects Revenue Challenge
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 38758/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 32
The Supreme Court on 23 January 2026 dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue, challenging a refund of about Rs. 2.9 crore granted to the Steel Authority of India's (SAIL) Bokaro plant in the initial years of the GST rollout. A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld a decision of the Jharkhand High Court that allowed the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess on coal, despite a gross delay of 676 days. The Bench observed it found “no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court."
Case Title : EverFlow PetroFils Limited & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84/2026
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a provision that allows tax authorities to raise demands of tax, interest, and penalty in cases of fraud or suppression, in situations where the department itself alleges that no taxable supply of goods or services ever took place. A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi took up the matter on January 30. The Bench directed the petitioners to serve a copy of the writ petition on the office of the Additional Solicitor General and said the ASG would assist the court on the next date of hearing.
Case Title : Prism Johnson Limited vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number : Diary No. 69736 of 2025
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz SC 44
The Supreme Court on Monday, issued notice and granted an interim stay on an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi against listed building materials company Prism Johnson Limited. The tribunal had upheld a service tax demand of about Rs 11.25 crore and denied CENVAT credit of around Rs 7.70 crore in related excise proceedings.
Case Title : The Value Added Tax Officer & Anr. vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1993 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 49
The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling that allowed a tax exemption claimed by Mitsubishi Corporation India for inter-state sales, rejecting the tax department's argument that the benefit was unavailable because an earlier sale of the goods was already exempt from tax. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the case did not warrant interference. “We see no good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,” the Court said while disposing of the appeal.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited (formerly known as Sesa Sterlite Limited/Sesa Goa Limited) vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Civil Appeal Diary No. 64232/2025
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice in a civil appeal filed by Vedanta Limited challenging a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which denied interest on a delayed refund of export duty, holding that statutory interest under the Customs Act becomes payable only after a valid refund application is filed. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan condoned the delay. It directed issuance of notice, returnable in six weeks. The order records: “Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.”
Supreme Court Lets LG Electronics Withdraw Challenge To Rajasthan HC Entry Tax Ruling
Case Title : LG Electronics India Private Limited (now known as LG Electronics India Ltd) vs Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27669- 27672/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to withdraw its Special Leave Petitions challenging a Rajasthan High Court ruling on entry tax, granting it liberty to seek a review before the High Court as the constitutional validity of the provision remains pending. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe recorded the submission that the vires of the provision had not been examined in the proceedings leading to the impugned judgment, since constitutional challenges are already pending before the Rajasthan High Court in separate writ petitions.
Case Title : PRANIJ HEIGHTS INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FOR ADMISSION
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3246/2026
The Supreme Court recently (February 6) issued notice in a challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that held that customs authorities were not required to communicate an extension granted for completing adjudication proceedings and directed that the matter be heard along with a pending appeal. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice in the special leave petition filed by Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. and directed that it be listed along with the pending SLP in Shri Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. that raises a similar question.
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Ruling On Duty Drawback For Unlocked Mobile Phones
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. vs. Avik Televentures Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.1037/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 52
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Customs, thereby letting stand a Delhi High Court ruling that unlocking or activating mobile phones prior to export does not disentitle exporters from claiming duty drawback. By an order dated January 30, 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, observing that it found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title : C L International & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) Commissionerate
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 55
The Supreme Court has recently declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court order declining to entertain writ petitions challenging show cause notices alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), holding that no good ground was made out for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. In an order dated January 30, 2026, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan dismissed the special leave petitions arising from the Delhi High Court's judgment of December 5, 2025, which had relegated the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Torrent Power Ltd.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 13084/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 56
The Supreme Court has set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment that had quashed the transfer of ₹19.28 crore in GST refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund and directed that the amount be refunded to Torrent Power Ltd. for adjustment in electricity tariff. Holding that such a mechanism was “not contemplated by Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Rules framed therein,” a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the company to transfer the amount to the authorities concerned for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund within three months.
DEEC Licence Must Be Valid On Date Of Warehouse Clearance To Claim Customs Exemption: Supreme Court
Case Title : Bangalore Mono Filaments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), Chennai & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 877/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 62
The Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated that in the case of warehoused goods, customs duty liability arises on the date of actual clearance from the warehouse, and an importer cannot claim exemption under a DEEC advance licence if the licence has expired by then. Upholding the High Court's decision, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that entitlement to exemption must subsist on the date duty is assessed.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vs Jayanthah Trading Company
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 2168/2026
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against a ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, which held that Customs officers cannot alter the Free on Board (FOB) value agreed upon between a buyer and seller. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed that the matter be heard along with a connected appeal.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX . & ORS. VS VIKARAM CEMENT
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 710/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 82
Holding that the Centre's 2024 litigation policy applies even to pending appeals, the Supreme Court on February 5, 2026 dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax against Vikaram Cement, ruling that the Rs. 25.47 lakh tax demand involved fell well below the Rs. 2 crore monetary limit fixed under the June 26, 2024 circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Rejecting the State's contention that the circular would not apply to appeals already filed under the repealed Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed: “A plain reading of the above condition of the circular would make it explicitly clear that even in respect of pending appeals relating to CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, the monetary limit fixed would be applicable.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) Vs Inter Globe Aviation Limited Etc
Case Number : Diary No. 58086/2025 In Civil Appeal Nos. 7744-9457/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 83
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department against its earlier judgment affirming relief granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, in a dispute concerning the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on re-import of aircraft and parts sent abroad for repairs. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan condoned the delay but declined to interfere with its earlier decision.
Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Title : Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1232-1237 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 88
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that, “Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.”
Case Title : HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES VS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2557-2578 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 90
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” manufactured by Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories is classifiable as a “fruit drink / processed fruit product” under Entry 103 of Schedule II Part A of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and not under the residuary entry taxable at 12.5%. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments dated July 2, 2018 and August 3, 2022, which had upheld taxing the product under the residuary entry.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CESTAT Cannot Reject Taxpayer Appeals Below ₹2 Lakh On Monetary Limit Alone: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shri Name Singh (Naim Singh) Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Kanpur
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 3 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL)11
The Allahabad High Court recently held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot mechanically reject a taxpayer's appeal on the ground that the amount involved is below ₹2 lakh. The Court said such appeals are maintainable as a rule and may be refused only in exceptional cases. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow Versus Shri Sarad Chand Agrahari @ Sharad Chand Agrahari
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 19 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 12
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently set aside a Customs tribunal order after finding that the tribunal failed to first examine whether the noticees (taxpayers) had actually sought cross-examination before holding that the adjudication proceedings stood vitiated for breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla ruled that the procedure under Section 138-B of the Customs Act, 1962, can be said to have been breached only if a specific request for cross-examination was made by the noticee and was then denied.
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that any money deposited by a taxpayer with the GST authorities, in the facts of the case, prior to filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, must be adjusted towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the appeal. In the present case, an interest liability of Rs 1.43 Crore was raised against Excel Vehicles, a unit of My Auto World Kanpur Private Limited, against which the taxpayer preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Allahabad High Court Declines To Quash Composite GST Notices To Multiple Assessees
Case Title : SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd and another Versus Union of India and 5 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 7515 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 15
The Allahabad High Court has recently declined to quash composite show cause notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central and Uttar Pradesh GST Acts to multiple assessees (taxpayers), holding that whether such clubbing is permissible is a mixed question of fact and law that must ordinarily be examined during statutory proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed, “Wherever it may be disputed that multiple noticees have been wrongly roped in together, that issue by very nature, would remain a mixed question of fact and law. Evidence would have to be led before any firm conclusion may be drawn, i.e. whether the dispute is such as may involve more than one noticee. It may normally be examined during statutory proceedings.”
“Access To Justice Cannot Be Held Hostage To Technology”: Allahabad High Court On Filing GST Appeals
Case Title : M/S. Ennbee Living Llp v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1235 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 16
The Allahabad High Court on 20 February addressed difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing appeals under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to technological barriers in the online system. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a case filed by Ennbee Living LLP, pertaining to the generation of a temporary id to file appeal under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Andhra Pradesh HC
No DIN? RFN On GST Orders Enough To Prove Digital Signature: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Pedda Masthan Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 1363/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APHC) 14
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated its view that the presence of a system-generated Reference Number (RFN) on GST orders issued through the portal is sufficient to establish that the document has been digitally signed. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders on the ground that they lacked physical signatures or a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Case Title : Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 21240/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 15
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 2 February held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be disallowed merely because essential commodities are sold at subsidised prices fixed by the State Government. It further held that by-products such as broken rice, bran and husk retained by millers during the milling of paddy do not constitute a taxable disposal or transfer attracting levy under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, challenging an assessment order passed for the period from June 2014 to March 2015.
Case Title : Fysolate Technologies v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : W.P (C)11150/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that where export is the direct result of a sale and the two form an integrated transaction that cannot be dissociated, such a sale is protected under Article 286 of the Constitution and cannot be subjected to State taxation. Explaining the law, the Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that a sale is “in the course of export” under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, when the sale itself occasions the export and the export is inextricably linked to the sale transaction.
No Separate GST On Chemicals Supplied Under Mud Engineering Contracts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Halliburton Offshore Services v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 14517/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that GST cannot be levied separately on mud engineering services and the supply of drilling chemicals, ruling that such contracts constitute a composite supply under the Goods and Services Tax law. A Division Bench comprising Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a writ petition filed by Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., setting aside orders passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which had treated the transaction as involving separate taxable supplies.
Andhra Pradesh High Courts Rejects Sales Tax Exemption Claim Over Defective Form A-5
Case Title : M/s Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company v. State
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE Nos.66 AND 67 OF 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February, refused to interfere with orders withdrawing sales tax exemption on commission sales, holding that Form A-5 declarations not bearing the official seal of the assessing authority cannot be treated as valid under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. A dealer files Form A-5 to claim sales tax exemption on commission sales. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a tax revision case filed by Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company and Bharathi Traders, which are registered dealers engaged in the purchase and sale of tamarind and jaggery.
No CST If State Tax Already Paid On Inter-State Movement Of Goods: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Gourav Kumar v. The CTO & Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 7053/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 19
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February held that once tax is levied and collected on goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act), no Central Sales Tax (CST) can be imposed on their inter-State movement, even if statutory declaration forms such as C-Forms or F-Forms are not furnished or are defective. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a petition challenging the CST assessment for the assessment year 2004–05, filed by Gourav Kumar Anuj Kumar, a general merchant and commission agent based in Guntur district.
Case Title : A.P. United Forum for RTI Campaign Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WP(PIL) NO: 161 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 20
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently directed the State's Chief Secretary to constitute an Apex Committee to identify defaulters and recover unpaid conversion tax dues under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan ordered, “… we feel that steps have to be taken for ensuring recovery of the outstanding tax. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh to constitute an Apex Committee which would include the Principal Secretary of the Revenue department to draw a list of defaulters who have not paid the conversion tax based upon data from various Districts. Steps be then taken for recovering the tax by following the procedure as is otherwise prescribed under the Act of 2006 as also the Rules of 2018.”
Bombay HC
Case Title : Kishore Nichani Vs The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4211 OF 20252
CITATION : 2026 LLbiz HC(BOM) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that where a taxpayer has cleared the entire GST liability, including tax, interest and penalty, continuing cancellation of GST registration serves no purpose and causes undue prejudice to the taxpayer. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Kishore Nichani, who challenged the State Tax Officer's refusal to restore his GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for more than six months.
Bombay High Court Reiterates That Service Tax Is Not Applicable On Legal Services
Case Title : Manisha Rajiv Shroff v. The Union of India and Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 1684 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 69
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an advocate, holding that legal services rendered by an advocate are exempted from levy of service tax. On 5 February, a Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the proceedings were squarely covered by the Court's earlier decision in Advocate Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner. The Court observed: “8. The present proceedings also would stand covered by such notifications and the position in law as held by this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil (supra).”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Composite GST Notice Against ICAD School
Case Title : ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 736 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 67
The Bombay High Court on Friday set aside a composite show cause notice spanning five financial years, issued to ICAD School of Learning Private Limited, a JEE and NEET coaching centre that offers hostel and mess facilities. On 6 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta emphasised that consolidation defeats the statutory scheme of assessment and recovery for distinct financial years.
CERSAI-Registered Bank Dues Take Priority Over State Tax Demands: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bharat Co Operative Bank Mumbai Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Mulund
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 172 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court on 28 January held that where a bank's security interest is registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) prior in time, its dues will have priority over tax demands raised by State authorities, including GST and MVAT dues. A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing two writ petitions filed by Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., challenging demand notices, prohibitory orders, and other communications issued by State tax authorities in respect of mortgaged properties.
CPC Summons Procedure Not Applicable to GST Inquiry; No 7-Day Notice Required: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 74
Interpreting Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Bombay High Court has held that the civil court summons procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read into GST investigations and that tax authorities are not required to give seven days' prior notice before summoning a person for inquiry. A Division Bench of Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition filed by Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, who sought Rs 10 lakh as compensation for alleged illegal detention by GST officers.
Bombay High Court Restores Trader's GST Registration After Defective 'Cyclostyled Notice'
Case Title : Om Enterprises Thr. Proprietor Mr. Nagesh Gopichand Motwani vs. The Union Of India Thr. Secretary And Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12760 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 75
The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently restored the cancelled GST registration of a trader, observing that the grounds cited in the show‑cause notice and those relied upon in the cancellation order were materially different. A Bench of Justice R.G. Avachat and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar examined the effect of retrospective cancellation of GST registration and emphasised the need to issue a reasoned notice rather than a generic, template-based communication.
Bombay High Court Continues Stay On GST Notice Over 1/3rd Land Deduction Amid Pending Proceedings
Case Title : Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (A.E.), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34439 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 82
The Bombay High Court on 4 February, continued its interim order staying further action on a show cause notice issued to Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. under Section 74 of the CGST/MGST Act, observing that the core issue is whether the Department had jurisdiction to issue the notice in light of earlier High Court rulings striking down the mandatory one-third land deduction under GST. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe on 6 January, granted interim relief and directed the respondents to file a reply affidavit within two weeks on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The Court ordered that, “in the meantime, no further action under the impugned show cause notice shall be taken.”
Case Title : Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Goods and Service Tax, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.13990 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 83
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that under the First Phase of the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fee Act, 2019, one hundred percent of undisputed tax must be paid and no waiver is available on such amount, dismissing a writ petition filed by a sugar manufacturing co-operative. A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar held, “for undisputed tax, amount to be paid is 100% of the amount in column B i.e. undisputed tax and the amount to be waived is nil.”
Case Title : Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 40917 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 85
Taking note that a director of Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. is undergoing treatment for cancer and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the Bombay High Court permitted videography of summons proceedings under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It also allowed his advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during recording of the statement.
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹133.60 Crore GST Penalty Each On Shemaroo Executives
Case Title : Amit Manilal Haria & Ors Vs The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. & Anr
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed penalties of Rs.133.60 crore each imposed on the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., holding that the statutory requirements necessary to fasten personal GST liability were not satisfied. The Court found that the penalty provision invoked by the department could not be applied in the absence of proof that the officers had retained the benefit of the impugned transactions and that the transactions were conducted at their instance.
Case Title : Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 18259 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 96
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside a stamp duty demand of over Rs. 1 crore raised against Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities erred by adding the cost of constructing a Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) while recalculating the market value in a slum redevelopment project. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) acted arbitrarily in enhancing the market value by including the PTC construction cost and also ruled that revision proceedings under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act must be completed within six years.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32 Crore GST Demand On Pidilite For Non-Supply Of Verification Reports
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court on 20 February set aside a GST demand exceeding Rs. 32 crore against Pidilite, holding that non-furnishing of verification reports relied upon in adjudication amounted to a clear breach of natural justice. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe quashed the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Bench observed: “Non furnishing of verification reports and no opportunity of a fair hearing on the same, in our opinion, certainly amounted to breach of the principles of natural justice, as behind the back of the Petitioner, no opinion could have been formed and expressed in the impugned order without the Petitioner being granted an opportunity to deal with the verification reports.”
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Year-Wise Assessment In GST, Limits Scope of Section 74 Notices
Case Title : Rainbow Greeners Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 99
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently, quashed a show cause notice issued against Rainbow Greeners Nagpur, under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the ground that it unlawfully clubbed five financial years in a single composite proceeding. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta wrote: “In the light of the statutory scheme, we find that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period which is attempted by the impugned Show Cause Notices assailed in the Petition.”
GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief, Including Stay On Recovery: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 4698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 103
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief. This includes protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals. The Court said that any interpretation to the contrary would render the appellate remedy “illusory” and defeat legislative intent. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The bank had challenged recovery intimations and a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 issued while its appeal was pending before the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Upholds CESTAT Relief To KEC International In ₹4.42 Crore Excise Matter
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & ST CGST, Daman, Vapi v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No 9 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 101
The Bombay High Court on 4 February dismissed a Central Excise Appeal filed by the Revenue against KEC International Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting exemption benefits to the assessee. A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while hearing the appeal, held that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the exemption notifications; therefore, no interference was warranted.
Case Title : Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 102
Observing that extension of tax incentives granted to Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited involves a policy decision requiring inter-ministerial dialogue, the Bombay High Court has directed the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, and other concerned authorities to take a decision on the company's pending representation within two months. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, which operates the “Imagicaa” theme park and “Aquamagica” water park at Khalapur in Raigad district. The project had been recognised as a “Mega Project” under the State's Tourism Policy 2006.
Calcutta HC
Amicable Settlement In Commercial GST Dispute Allows Quashing of FIR: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Indian Compressors Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number : CRR 530 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 38
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed an FIR and released the frozen corporate bank accounts of Indian Compressors Ltd., clarifying that where a dispute is essentially commercial and private in nature, and the parties have voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement, criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even for non-compoundable offences.
A Bench of Justice Uday Kumar noted: "Where the dispute is essentially commercial and private in character, and the parties have voluntarily reached an amicable settlement, the High Court, to secure the ends of justice and prevent an abuse of judicial process, shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences," the Bench stated.
Joint Commissioner's VAT Revision Cannot Be Revisited By Senior Officer: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Sales Tax Officer v. Sanjay Sur and Another
Case Number : R.V.W.O No.5 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 39
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that once an order is revised by a Joint Commissioner under Section 86 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, it cannot be subjected to a further suo motu revision under Section 85 by a Senior Joint Commissioner, as both officers act as delegates of the Commissioner and exercise the same revisional authority. A Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda, while dismissing a review petition filed by the West Bengal Tax Department, wrote: "Once an order has been subjected to revision under Section 86, it cannot thereafter be revised under Section 85 of the Act of 2003. Permitting such a course of action would result in an impermissible cycle of successive revisions", stated the bench.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Service Tax On C&F and Transport of Steel, Excludes Bending & Bundling
Case Title : Naresh Kumar & Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : CEXA 49 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 40
On 4 February, the Calcutta High Court held that service tax applies to “Clearing and Forwarding” (C&F) services and transport expenses for steel products. The Court clarified that activities such as transporting, storing, forwarding, and record-keeping fall within the scope of C&F services, while bending, bundling, and stock verification of goods do not. A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal by Naresh Kumar & Co., which claimed exemption from service tax on payments received for C&F services rendered to Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) and Tata Ryerson Ltd (TRL).
Superintendent Cannot Adjudicate Cases Involving Extended Limitation: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Nishant Jagaty & Anr. v. The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Rannge-III, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 20394 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 42
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that cases that invoke the extended period of limitation are expressly excluded from the adjudicatory powers of a Superintendent, even if the demand falls within their monetary limit. Justice Om Narayan Rai, allowed a writ petition filed by the partners of Radiant Security, challenging an order by which the Superintendent, CGST, demanded service tax of Rs. 72,000 along with education cess and secondary and higher secondary cess, and imposed penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Naveen and Suraj Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
Case Number : W.P.(CRL) 1872/2024, CRL.M.A. 18198/2024.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 114
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with GST summons issued to two Panipat-based traders, holding that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are meant only to aid an inquiry and do not amount to the start of coercive proceedings. Dismissing the challenge, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an attempt to quash summons at the inquiry stage is, in substance, an attempt to seek protection from arrest.
Delhi High Court Intervenes Against CESTAT Release Order On 53 Kgs Of Imported Gold
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs vs. Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 84/2025 & CM APPL. 33358/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 122
The Delhi High Court on 16 January 2026 issued an ad-interim order, effectively intervening against a CESTAT order which had granted the provisional release of gold to Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that prima facie, the Tribunal order dated 17 March 2025, had failed to consider the fact and legal effect of 53 kilograms of imported gold being kept in unauthorised custody for four days, from 13 August 2020 to 17 August 2020.
2017 CBIC Circular On Proper Officers' Powers Under CGST Act Is Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Lovelesh Singhal vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1426/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 128
The Delhi High Court upheld a 2017 Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) assigning functions to officers under the CGST Act, holding that it is legally valid when issued pursuant to a proposal by the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. In a judgement dated 2 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a challenge to the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017, while granting limited relief only by rescheduling the summons issued to the petitioner.
No Vested Right To Redeem Confiscated Prohibited Goods Under Customs Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Bhagwan Corporation v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD Patparganj
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18556/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 138
The Delhi High Court has recently held that redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not a vested or automatic right, particularly where the goods are prohibited for import. Dismissing the writ petition filed by an importer challenging the absolute confiscation of areca nuts, the division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Section 125(1) of the Customs Act employs the expression “may”, thereby conferring discretion upon the adjudicating authority to grant, or deny redemption, particularly in cases involving prohibited goods. The statute does not create an absolute or vested right to redemption.”
Case Title : Hira Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSAA 7/2026 & CM APPL. 7007/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 153
The Delhi High Court has recently held that once the market value of goods seized by the Customs is specified in a show cause notice, the burden lies on the one who recieved notice to disprove the valuation with cogent material, and a mere denial is insufficient to seek interference in appellate proceedings. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing an importer's appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Customs adjudicating authority and CESTAT, which had upheld confiscation and penalties in a case relating to smuggling of foreign-origin cigarettes.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Order For Failing To Consider IBC Moratorium Plea
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1988/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 154
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order passed against a Finance company, holding that the tax authorities failed to consider the company's specific plea that proceedings were barred due to a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul quashed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, which had confirmed a demand of Rs. 67.5 lakh towards alleged ineligible input tax credit (ITC), along with interest and penalty.
Case Title : Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2286/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 183
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an exporter cannot block the entry or processing of a return shipment merely by disowning the consignment, and that once the importer/exporter refuses to clear the goods, the statutory consequences under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 must follow. For context, Section 48 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading.
Non-Declaration Of Gold At Green Channel Not Always Smuggling: Delhi High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2417/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in a case of non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel which does not amount to smuggling, absolute confiscation may be disproportionate and redemption on payment of fine may be permitted. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “The release is permitted only upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with applicable duty. The orders under challenge therefore do not condone the violation and instead calibrate the consequence.”
Gauhati HC
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Based On Investigative Dictation Alone: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ankit Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/875/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 5
The Gauhati High Court on 17 February, held that cancellation of GST registration cannot be sustained when it is based on vague allegations and issued at the behest of the investigating wing, without independent application of mind by the proper officer. A Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury allowed a writ petition was filed by Ankit Choudhary, sole proprietor of Ankit Enterprises, challenging a show cause notice, the subsequent order cancelling his GST registration, and the order rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation.
Gujarat HC
GST Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Limitation Period Cannot Be Condoned: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Agrawal Enterprises v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 386 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 10
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal against a demand order on the ground of limitation, clarifying that a High Court cannot condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed by the statute. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed an appeal by M/S. Agarwal Enterprises and cautioned that taxpayers are required to remain vigilant and regularly verify orders uploaded on the GST portal.
GST Appeal Limitation Starts From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Order: Gujarat High Court
Recently, the Gujarat High Court clarified that when a rectification application is filed, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act runs from the date of disposal of the rectification application, not the original order. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted the delay in adjudication where a rectification application against an original order dated 12 August 2024 was filed on 5 November 2024, to be decided within three months. However, the rectification application was finally disposed of on 19 March 2025.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Order, Says Mere Reference To Submissions Is Not Consideration
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Ltd. vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 12708 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 14
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order directing recovery of deficit stamp duty and fine from Metalloys Recycling Ltd, holding that the authority failed to deal with the company's written submissions before passing the decision. Allowing the Special Civil Application, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the order dated May 24, 2023 passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Valsad was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
GST Appeal Cannot Be Entertained Beyond Statutory Limit Of 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Rajanish Industries (Prop. Shah Om Jitendrakumar) vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 624 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 16
The Gujarat High Court has held that delay in filing an appeal against cancellation of GST registration cannot be condoned beyond the statutory maximum period of 120 days (3+1 months) prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, in a judgment dated 22 January 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajesh Industries, a proprietorship firm, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to override legislative timelines.
Case Title : Niket Bipinbhai Patel Through Power Of Attorney Holder vs. Bipinbhai Madhavbhai PATEL vs. Assistant Commissioner (A.E.) CGST-Central Excise Vadodara-II Commissionerate
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 18068 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 18
The Gujarat High Court has held that Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which blocks input tax credit on goods or services used for construction of immovable property on one's own account, did not apply in a case where the taxpayer had only transferred leasehold rights and had undertaken no construction activity. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Act and directed the department to unblock Rs. 98,11,678 lying in the electronic credit ledger of a Non Resident Indian engaged in transfer of leasehold rights.
Re-Export Option Lapses If Redemption Fine Paid After 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Goodwill Industries vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13305 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 19
The Gujarat High Court on 6 February, held that the 120-day timeline for payment of redemption fine under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, and failure to pay within this period renders the re-export option void. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the writ petition filed by Goodwill Industries, while directing the refund of Rs. 12 lakh redemption fine and retaining the Rs. 8 lakh penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Classification Of 'Mint Orange 2022' As Industrial Input Under VAT Act
Case Title : State of Gujarat Through The Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs. Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 In R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court has held that 'Mint Orange 2022' is classifiable as an industrial input under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, clarifying that household use does not prevent a product from being treated as an industrial input when its composition and primary use are industrial in nature. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Department, holding that the product qualifies as an aromatic chemical and compound under Entry 226 of Schedule II, covered by Entry 42A relating to industrial inputs.
Order Passed In Fraud Proceedings Cannot Be Reclassified To Avail Amnesty Scheme: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : R B Pandey And Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central CGST and Central Excise Division
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 8054 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court held that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 involving allegations of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be converted into a non-fraud order under Section 73 merely to enable the taxpayer to claim relief under the GST Amnesty Scheme, in the absence of documentary evidence disproving such allegations. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, by its order dated 13 February 2026, rejected the plea of R.B. Pandey and Sons, the taxpayer, who sought conversion of a GST demand of Rs. 79,34,968 from Section 74 to Section 73 of the CGST Act, and upheld the demand after finding that the taxpayer had failed to produce invoices, returns or other supporting records.
Case Title : Ashland India Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 23
The Gujarat High Court has restored over Rs.1.29 Crore rebate claim of a merchant exporter, holding that the absence of original ARE-1 forms cannot defeat a rebate claim when export and duty payment are otherwise verifiable. ARE-1 stands for Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export. It was a statutory export document under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It recorded details of manufacture, duty payment, and export. Under Rule 18, the original copy was ordinarily required to be filed along with a rebate claim.
Case Title : Balkrishna Industries Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1903 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 24
The Gujarat High Court has ordered refund of Rs. 18,00,140 collected as penalty from Balkrishna Industries Limited, holding that imposition of penalty merely because an e-way bill expired during transit was unsustainable in the facts of the case. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that “In wake of such undisputed fact, the imposition of harsh penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was uncalled for and is also beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.”
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 469 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHA)3
The Jharkhand High Court has permitted Ranchi-based manufacturer Ashirwad Food Industries to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal without making any additional pre-deposit, noting that ₹23.85 lakh had already been deposited at the first appellate stage.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar found “substance in the contention” of the petitioner and held: “Considering the deposit of Rs.23.85 lakhs already made at the first appellate stage, we agree that there would be no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2025.”
Case Title : Tata Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4397 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Jhar) 4
The Jharkhand High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Tata Chemicals Limited, Hindalco Industries Limited, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Tata Steel Limited and several other taxpayers, holding that reopening of completed VAT assessments beyond the statutory period is barred by limitation. A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the issue was already settled and that “the law is set at rest.”
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Demand On Solar Plant For Lack of Personal Hearing, Remands Matter
Case Title : Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Limited vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 109976 of 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 12
The Karnataka High Court has held that the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods and input services used for setting up a captive solar power plant is unsustainable where the adjudicating authority acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, passed the order on 21 January 2026, setting aside the GST demand raised against Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Ltd. The Bench noted that once a binding advance ruling existed in favour of the taxpayer, any adverse order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing stood vitiated.
Service Tax On Ocean Freight In CIF Imports Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Konkan Specialty Poly v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 19754 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has held that service tax cannot be levied on ocean freight in imports made on a CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) basis, as such services fall outside the scope of the Finance Act, 1994. “The Act itself would be inapplicable to territories other than India and the Executive would not have the power to make rules for territories beyond India and where the events could be described to be extra territorial events i.e., service provided by a foreign exporter and a transport company which also enters into contract for transportation outside the territory of India, such extra territorial transactions cannot be the subject matter of a national law,” the court said.
Case Title : Huawei Technologies India Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a show cause notice issued to Huawei Technologies India Private Limited demanding Rs. 85.51 crore in Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), along with interest and penalty, on salaries paid to foreign national employees. Justice S R Krishna Kumar held that this was not a case of secondment at all, but one where Huawei India had a direct employer-employee relationship with the foreign nationals working for it.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Quashes Panchayat Prosecution Over Tax Dues, Reiterates Recovery Must Fail First
Case Title : General Manager, GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Secretary, Mankada Grama Panchayat & Anr.
Case Number : CRL.MC NO. 6229 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 20
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a grama panchayat against the General Manager of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. over alleged non-payment of panchayat tax in respect of mobile towers, holding that prosecution under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act can be launched only after statutory recovery proceedings are first exhausted. A Single Bench of Justice C. S. Dias allowed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the General Manager, who was the first accused in a complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna.
Kerala High Court Quashes Composite GST Notices Issued to Actor Honey Rose
Case Title : Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited v. State Of Kerala & Others (with connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) No. 15618 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 27
The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to set aside composite GST show cause notices and assessment orders issued to actor Honey Rose Varghese and several other taxpayers, holding that it was bound by earlier Division Bench rulings requiring separate proceedings for each assessment year. Allowing the batch of petitions, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that there was no stay on the earlier orders of the court and was therefore bound by it. “In this case, evidently, no stay is also obtained against the judgment in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) or Tharayil Medicals (supra). Therefore, I am bound to follow the observations and principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decisions."
Case Title : Authentic Metals v. Enforcement Officer & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 881 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 28
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that GST authorities cannot release seized goods during confiscation proceedings merely because the trader pays the fine proposed in a show cause notice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ruled that Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act permits payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation only after a final confiscation order is passed. “Mere notice to initiate confiscation proceedings will not amount to authorisation for confiscation,” the court said.
Case Title : Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 21609 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 31
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a bona fide mistake committed by a taxpayer while filing revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms cannot justify denial of transitional Input Tax Credit, especially in the absence of any allegation of tax evasion. TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 are statutory forms under Section 140 of the CGST Act through which taxpayers carried forward eligible input tax credit from the pre-GST regime into GST.
Case Title : Yaser Arafat. K v The Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : Crl. RP 162/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 33
The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge one of the accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that in the present case, statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with other materials constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial. “Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon, and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are matters to be decided after trial,” Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
Madras HC
Police Security Services Exempt From Service Tax Prior To June 2012: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate vs. UOI
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos. 5591 & 5592 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 39
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea seeking service tax exemption for police guard charges and escort duties, holding that such activities carried out by the State Police do not fall within the service tax net prior to 1 June 2012. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer, in a judgment delivered on 12 December 2025, examined service tax liability by referring to the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 42
On Wednesday, the Madras High Court held that affiliation fees collected by universities from affiliated colleges are liable to GST and are not exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). A Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan delivered the ruling. The judges were hearing a writ petition filed by Bharathidasan University, challenging the GST demand notices issued for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-23.
Case Title : Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.1938 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 44
The Madras High Court recently ruled that a show cause notice under Section 74A of the GST law can be validly issued for F.Y. 2024-25 on the basis of discrepancies noticed in monthly returns, without awaiting the filing of the annual return. Section 74A of the GST Act, applicable from FY 2024-25 onwards, governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised.
Case Title : Dharmaraj vs. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.No.2921 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.2370 and 3271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 45
The Madras High Court has directed GST authorities to adjudicate a show cause notice proposing to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu but ordered that implementation of the assessment order shall remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. Justice C. Saravanan was hearing a petition challenging Show Cause Notice dated September 29, 2025. The notice proposes to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the State.
Duty-Free Import Benefits Denied Over Unauthorised Diversion, Poor Record-Keeping: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Regin.P
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)Nos.571, 572, 573 & 574 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 47
The Madras High Court on 10 February, held that duty-free import benefits under the Advance Authorisation Scheme can be denied when the importer diverts the goods into the domestic market without authorisation. A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima allowed the Department's appeals, arising from a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Department) against the proprietor of Regin Agency, and Regin Exports.
Case Title : Virbac Animal Health India Pvt., Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP No. 27739 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 56
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that differential customs duty voluntarily paid during a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation cannot be claimed as a refund. The Court further held that Notification No. 25/2019-Customs amended the applicable customs duty rate by treating shrimp larvae feed in both pellet and non-pellet form as attracting 5% basic customs duty. The notification cannot be applied retrospectively to imports made prior to its issuance.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹ 85 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title : Pravash Chandra Mishra v. Union of India (CGST)
Case Number : BLAPL No. 9957 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 8
The Orissa High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case, where he was alleged to have fraudulently availed Rs. 85 crores of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy was hearing the accused, who was being prosecuted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, under provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Knight Fly Boyz v. Officer of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : CWP-17615-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 5
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand orders raised against a manpower services firm, holding that its allegation that a Chartered Accountant misappropriated tax payments raised disputed questions of fact and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance to bypass the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri noted that the petitioner had itself authorised the Chartered Accountant to handle its GST compliance.
Case Title : Swastika Insulation through its Prop., Sh. Kunal Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others
Case Number : CWP 23675 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 7
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the Punjab tax department from taking coercive recovery action against a proprietorship firm over a legacy VAT demand, after the state told the court that the assessment record had been destroyed in a fire. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri recorded the State's submission that the assessment order against Swastika Insulation was not available with the department, as the record was “stated to have been burnt.”
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : MR Traders v the Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4558/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that a GST appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond one additional month after the expiry of the three-month statutory period for filing an appeal, even if sufficient cause is shown. Setting out the law, the court ruled that Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits the Appellate Authority to condone delay only up to one month and that it can't take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend that period further.
Case Title : Hazi A.p Bava and Company v. Commissioner, Central Excise And Goods And Service Tax
Case Number : D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 17744/ 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 7
The Rajasthan High Court has recently set aside a service tax demand raised nearly nine years after issuance of show cause notices, holding that revival of proceedings after prolonged administrative dormancy amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and defeats the statutory discipline prescribed under the Finance Act. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit quashed an order dated October 24, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur.
CESTAT
CESTAT Sets Aside Rejection Of Declared Import Value Over Inadmissible Statements, Emails
Case Title : Ajanta Overseas v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50374 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 46
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi Bench recently held that customs authorities cannot reject the declared value of imported furniture by relying on investigation statements and email printouts unless mandatory legal safeguards are followed. The coram comprised President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya. The tribunal said that statements recorded during an investigation do not automatically qualify as evidence and can be relied upon only after they pass the test of admissibility.
No Service Tax On Government-Supplied Water For Industrial Use: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Brahmani River Pellets v. Commissioner of GST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76822 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 48
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clarified that service tax is not leviable on water charges paid to the Government of Odisha for the supply of water drawn from a natural source for industrial purposes. The Tribunal ruled that such transactions amount to the supply of water and not the grant of a taxable licensing service. Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, delivered the ruling in an appeal filed by Brahmani River Pellets, a manufacturer of iron ore pellets operating a plant in Odisha.
Transfer of Development Rights Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Quashes ₹4.48 Crore Demand on Omaxe
Case Title : Omaxe Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50348 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 50
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has set aside a Rs 4.48 crore service tax demand against real estate developer Omaxe Limited, ruling that the transfer of development rights is not taxable as a service. Allowing the appeal, the tribunal relied on its earlier ruling in DLF Commercial Projects Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram. It held that “transfer of such land development rights is transfer of immovable property” under the General Clauses Act and therefore falls outside the service tax law.
Covid Customs Duty Exemption Covers Oxygen Concentrators, Not Just Ventilators: CESTAT, New Delhi
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51525 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 49
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that oxygen concentrators are eligible for exemption from customs duty under the Covid-19 relief notification issued in April 2020 and that the benefit cannot be restricted only to ventilators. Thr tribunal set aside a duty demand of Rs. 36.66 lakh raised on Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member C.J. Mathew observed that the notification granting a nil rate of duty on "artificial respiration or other therapeutic respiration apparatus (ventilators)" was intended to be read broadly, especially in the extraordinary circumstances prevailing at the onset of the pandemic.
Using Corporate Helicopter For Private Flights Breaches Customs Exemption: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 51
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the private and non-revenue use of a helicopter imported by a corporate entity defeats the basis of the customs duty exemption granted for non-scheduled passenger or charter services. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya examined a batch of cross-appeals filed by Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA) and the Customs Department against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi.
Fixing Hearing Dates Without Virtual Links Violates Natural Justice: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Meera Bux Neelgar v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50063 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 52
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when an appellate authority fixes hearing dates without providing virtual hearing links, it violates the principles of natural justice and renders the opportunity of hearing a completely nugatory, hollow formality. A Bench comprising Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Meera Bux Neelgar against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jodhpur.
Customs Cannot Arrogate Powers Under FEMA To Confiscate Currency Or Travel Cards: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Salt Experiences & Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 51745 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 47
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs officers cannot arrogate powers under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, to confiscate currency or travel cards under the Customs Act, 1962. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member C J Mathew observed that while customs officers have the authority to intercept and seize currency at airports, they cannot adjudicate matters under the Customs Act for violations that fall strictly under FEMA.
HAL Fire Extinguishers In Su30MKI Jets Are Integral Aircraft Parts Exempt From Duty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Hal Transport Aircraft Division vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50304 of 2024 With Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50872 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 53
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fire extinguishers installed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Su30MKI fighter jets qualify as integral aircraft parts and cannot be treated as stand-alone safety equipment to deny customs duty exemption. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, on 9 January 2026, set aside the differential customs duty demand of Rs. 92 lakh against HAL.
Service Tax Demand Based Solely On IT Returns Is Presumptive: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : MM Construction vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Thane
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86731 of 2023 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT (MUM) 54
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax demand based solely on differences between income tax and service tax returns is presumptive. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, on 7 January 2026, set aside a Rs. 7.05 crore service tax demand raised on MM Construction, a civil contractor engaged in road construction and drainage improvement works for municipal and government authorities.
Are Skin & Hair Care Treatments Taxable As Cosmetic Surgery? CESTAT Delhi Seeks Fresh Examination
Case Title : Trichoderm vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.50829 of 2021 with Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.50658 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 55
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 30 January, asked the lower authorities to re-examine whether skin and hair care treatments provided by a clinical establishment qualify as “Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Services” and are therefore liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was examining an appeal filed by Trichoderm, a Delhi-based clinical establishment operating under the brand name 'Medlinks'.
Coal Royalty Includible For Excise Valuation, Other Statutory Levies Excluded: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 56177 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 56
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited, holding that royalty collected on coal sales is includible in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty, but only for the normal period of limitation. The tribunal, however, set aside excise duty demands on other statutory levies and quashed the invocation of extended limitation, penalty and interest.
Case Title : Marie Products Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60693 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 60
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a central excise demand against a supari manufacturer, holding that alleged clandestine manufacture and removal could not be sustained in this case when the department relied only on electricity consumption.
A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao rejected the department's approach, observing: “We are unable to accept this submission of the department. In our view, all that the figures and calculations show is that if the production of supari in terms of electricity consumption has been as efficient during the entire period of dispute as it had been during the period 1 November 2017 to 9 November 2017, the production of supari would have been as calculated. However, the calculation does not establish that the production has, indeed, been so efficient throughout the period of dispute, and part of the supari so produced was clandestinely removed without paying duty.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Customs Exemption For IMFA Helicopter Used In Non-Revenue Flights
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 61
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has reiterated that non-revenue flights cannot qualify as air transport services for customs duty exemption. “Flight service for no remuneration at all would not qualify to be considered as air transport service,” the tribunal noted, relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. while examining the use of an imported helicopter.
Electricity Supplied To State Board Not Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 587 of 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 57
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a manufacturer is not entitled to CENVAT credit on fuel used to generate electricity that is wholly supplied to the State Electricity Board (SEB), even if an equivalent quantity of power is later received back through a synchronisation arrangement. A Bench of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed that since the electricity generated using the inputs was entirely supplied to the grid and not used in the factory, credit on such fuel was not admissible.
Bulk Imported Nutraceutical Ingredients Cannot Be Classified As "Edible Preparations": CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner, Customs New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51113 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 58
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that nutraceutical ingredients imported in bulk cannot be classified as “edible preparations” and therefore do not attract a higher customs duty. The Bench, comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 7 crore raised against Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited on allegations of misclassification of imported nutraceutical ingredients.
CESTAT Allows Nil Basic Customs Duty On Sterling Silver Jewellery Imported From Thailand
Case Title : M/s. Shri Gopal Jewellers v. Commissioner of Customs– New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50045 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 59
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently allowed a jeweller to claim nil basic customs duty on sterling silver jewellery imported from Thailand, ruling that customs authorities were wrong to deny the benefit just because the importer did not provide some information. Nil basic customs duty refers to zero customs duty payable on certain imports under applicable trade agreements.
CESTAT Mumbai Remands CENVAT Credit Refund Claim Of Software Exporter For Fresh Adjudication
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Vs M/s Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86930 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 62
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside an order granting a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit to Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to examine key factual issues bearing on the assessee's entitlement to CENVAT credit and its utilisation.
Forfeited Security Deposits And Tender Fee Do Not Attract Tax: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s RajComp Info Services Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50096 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 63
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), Security Deposit (SD) and collection of tender fee do not attract service tax, as such amounts cannot be treated as consideration for a declared service under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, allowed the appeal filed by RajComp Info Services Limited, an undertaking, wholly owned by the Government of Rajasthan, against a service tax demand confirmed for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17.
Salaries And Consultancy Reimbursements To Foreign Joint Venture Not Taxable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40027 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 65
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February held that reimbursements made by an Indian company to its overseas joint venture do not constitute consideration for taxable services and are therefore not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order dropping the service tax demand against Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer), observing that no service provider–recipient relationship existed and that the entire activity took place in a non-taxable territory.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rs. 63.36 Lakh IGST Demand On Quality Systems, Confirms Tax At 12%
Case Title : QUALITY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTS P.LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-NHAVA SHEVA – V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87915 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 64
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February set aside a demand of Rs. 63.36 lakh towards differential IGST on parts of poultry-keeping machinery, holding that payment of GST at 12% by Quality Systems and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was proper in view of subsequent CBIC clarifications. A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the company against the Order-in-Original dated 12 September 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Software Part Of Hardware Value, Reduces Duty Demand On Wipro
Case Title : M/s. Wipro (Infotech Group) v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40588 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 66
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of software supplied along with imported networking equipment by Wipro (Infotech Group) is includible in the assessable value of the hardware for the purpose of levying customs duty. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the demand to the normal period of limitation, while setting aside the extended period and penalties imposed on Wipro.
No Service Tax On Adda Fees Collected At Amritsar Bus Terminal: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Rohan And Rajdeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55340 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 67
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that adda fees collected for the use of the Amritsar bus terminal are not liable to service tax. The Bench, comprising Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical), clarified that the entire bus-terminal constructed by the Appellant could not have been built to support the business of bus operators. Bus terminals are created as a public utility service and not as support services for bus operators; hence, service tax is not leviable under Business Support Services.
Case Title : Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (RIDCOR) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51891 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 69
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside rejection of a Rs. 1.58 crore service tax refund to Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. (RIDCOR), holding that construction of public parking facilities and a government residential school was not a commercial activity. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, in its order dated 13 February 2026, held that parking projects constructed for municipal use fall within public functions under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : N. Sundar v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41441 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 68
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cashew Shell Liquid (CNSL) is eligible for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, as amended in 2006 and read with the Corrigendum dated February 28, 2006. The tribunal set aside a Rs. 3.22 lakh excise duty demand raised on the manufacturer for allegedly wrongfully availing SSI exemption on CNSL clearances.
Case Title : GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 42242 to 42245 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 70
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that companies cannot claim CENVAT credit on employee welfare services after April 1, 2011, following a statutory amendment that expressly excluded such benefits. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was deciding appeals filed by GE T&D India Ltd., a manufacturer of electrical and transmission equipment. The dispute covered April 2010 to March 2015.
CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty On Customs Broker, Says CHALR Violation Alone Insufficient
Case Title : Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs,
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58485 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 71
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a penalty imposed on a Customs Broker under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, holding that mere violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) cannot by itself justify penalty under the Act in the absence of specific allegations and material showing knowledge. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58496 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 72
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently set aside penalties of Rs 25 lakh each imposed on Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Vikas Chaudhary, holding that statements recorded by customs officers cannot be treated as relevant evidence unless the mandatory procedure under the law is followed. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta, and Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the penalties were imposed solely on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without complying with Section 138B.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Against IBM India On Warranty Expense Reimbursements
Case Title : M/s. IBM India Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Large Taxpayers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26550 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 73
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February set aside service tax demands raised against IBM India Pvt. Ltd., holding that reimbursements received from overseas IBM entities towards warranty costs, in the absence of consideration for any service, cannot be taxed under “management, maintenance or repair” service. A Bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) passed the order allowing the appeals filed by IBM India.
Case Title : Lombardini India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86157 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 75
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February allowed Lombardini India to claim CENVAT credit of Rs. 56 lakhs in a case where it had entered into an agreement with Kohler India for certain services. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that once service tax has been collected by the service provider and accepted by the Department, the credit cannot be denied to the recipient. They held: “…once the tax liability has been discharged and accepted by the department, the consequential CENVAT credit cannot be denied at the recipient's side.”
CESTAT Kolkata Affirms CBEC Circular, Reiterates Sub-Contractor Independently Liable For Service Tax
Case Title : M/s. Rigtech Power v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76246 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 74
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February clarified that after the issuance of CBEC Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23 August 2007, a sub-contractor is independently liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by it, even where the main contractor has already discharged the Service Tax liability on the same project. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, was examining the legality of invoking the extended period of limitation in a service tax demand raised against Rigtech Power, the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Service Tax Paid By Grindwell Norton Supplier
Case Title : GRINDWELL NORTON LTD VS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-THANE RURAL
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 86880 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 77
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,99,183 to Grindwell Norton Ltd., reiterating that once service tax has been paid by the service provider and accepted by the department, it cannot be questioned. A Single Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) passed the Final Order, noting that the disputed invoices were raised by the job worker under a belief that the services were taxable.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand Of Criticallog India, Holds BIS Not Required For Spare Parts
Case Title : Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50356 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 76
On Wednesday 18 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, set aside the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties that the authorities imposed on Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. for imported “Memory” and “Power Supply” items. The Tribunal held that a BIS registration does not apply to spare parts imported for warranty replacement. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, ruled that the appellate authority erred in treating the import as misdeclared and clarified that spare parts do not require BIS registration.
CESTAT Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation, Cites Contradictory Findings
Case Title : Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Case Number : Final Order No. A/85317/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 78
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai recently set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the adjudicating authority recorded contradictory findings. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.
No Service Tax Payable On Overseas Film Shooting Expenses Under Reverse Charge: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75875 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 79
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed the appeal filed by Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd., holding that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on expenses incurred in foreign currency for the shooting of films and allied activities carried outside India. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, observed that the department had raised the demand merely on the basis of figures reflected in the balance sheet under the head "expenditure in foreign currency" without identifying or classifying the specific taxable service.
Case Title : Airport Authority of India Vs Commissioner of CGST- Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52465 Of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 80
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 18 February, held that Service Tax is not leviable on Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) collected by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), as such services are not rendered entirely within the airport or civil enclave, as required under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. A Division Bench Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing AAI's appeal against confirmation of service tax demand on RNFC, Terminal Navigation Landing Charges (TNLC) and certain miscellaneous income.
Allegations Of Clandestine Removal Cannot Rely On Unauthenticated Evidence: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41116 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 81
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained in the absence of legally admissible electronic evidence and a complete chain of corroborative material. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao on 4 February 4, allowed the appeals filed by the Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director and Manager, and quashed the duty demand of Rs. 2.79 crore, along with equal penalty and consequential personal penalties.
Incorrect Tariff Classification Not Enough To Invoke Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s iValue Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 82
On 23 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods in a Bill of Entry cannot automatically lead to invocation of the extended period of limitation, confiscation of goods, or imposition of penalty in the absence of intent to evade duty. A Bench comprising the President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, partly allowed the appeal by iValue Infosolutions Private Limited, and set aside the demand raised for the extended period, along with confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Value Enhancement Based Solely On DRI Alert In Fabric Import Case
Case Title : Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86769 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 83
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February set aside the enhancement of value of imported knitted fabrics, holding that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value solely on the basis of a DRI Alert and NIDB data without following the procedure prescribed under law. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, was hearing an appeal filed by Kumar Mahendra Exim against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the re-determination of the value of the imported goods.
No Service Tax On Exempt Road, Canal Works Based Solely On TDS Deduction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Shailja Construction v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70031 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 84
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 February held that mere deduction of TDS and reflection of receipts in Form 26AS cannot determine service tax liability when the underlying activity, i.e., construction of roads and canals for Government authorities, is expressly exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary allowed an appeal by Shailja Construction, noting that the entire demand had been raised mechanically on the basis of Form 26AS entries and TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, without examining the actual nature of the services rendered.
Case Title : Price Water House Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75239 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 85
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed in a case that CENVAT credit/refund could not have been denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed. The bench consists of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided a batch of service tax appeals filed by Price Waterhouse Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the denial of CENVAT credit and refund on multiple grounds mostly technical irregularities.
Shifting Materials Within Factory Not Taxable As “Cargo Handling Service”: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Eastern Transport Agency v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70245 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 86
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February, held that shifting and transportation of materials within factory premises does not fall under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" and therefore no service tax is payable on such activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Eastern Transport Agency (taxpayer) against an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.28 crore, along with interest and penalties, for the period October 2006 to March 2011.
Service Tax Leviable On Infrastructure Support To TCS, Educational Training Exempt: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76030 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 87
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 February, confirmed service tax liability on infrastructure and allied facilities provided to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) under “Business Support Service”, while setting aside the entire demand for training and educational activities under “Management or Business Consultancy Service”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided the appeal filed by Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) (appellant), a charitable educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, against a service tax demand of Rs. 2.38 crore confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.
Customs House Agent Services To Foreign Clients Are Export, Service Tax Not Payable: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Ceva Freight India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75990 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 88
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that Customs House Agent (CHA) services rendered by an international freight forwarder to overseas customers constitute “export of service” and are not liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan heard cross appeals arising from an order passed against Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd (taxpayer), an international freight forwarder engaged in the transportation of cargo for inbound and outbound shipments.
Case Title : T T Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70574 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 89
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the facts of the case, an amount paid under protest during investigation, before any adjudication or confirmed demand, cannot be treated as “duty” but only as a deposit. It ruled that interest on such a refund is payable at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The order was passed by Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary while allowing the appeal filed by T T Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn. The dispute concerned interest on the refund of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles).
Housekeeping, Manpower Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit Post-2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Cetex Petrochemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40527 to 40529 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 90
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 February held that CENVAT credit on services such as housekeeping, gardening, pest control, manpower supply, and business membership cannot be denied merely due to the post-2011 amendment, so long as the services have a clear connection with manufacturing or business activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was hearing an appeal filed by Cetax Petrochemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of petrochemical products, against the partial denial of CENVAT credit for the period March 2014 to March 2015.
Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Machines Imported Pre-2012 Not Confiscable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Jaya Trading Company v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41557 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 91
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported before June 2012 were freely importable and not liable to confiscation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao were hearing an appeal by Jaya Trading Company. The members examined whether the rejection of the importer's appeal on limitation was legally sustainable and whether second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported prior to 5 June 2012 could be treated as restricted goods, thereby justifying confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act.
Bought-Out Optional Plywood Tops Value Not Includible In Excise Duty on Folding Cots: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shree Durga Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 76598 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 92
In partial relief to Shree Durga Industry, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that while fabrication of steel folding cots amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, the value of optional plywood tops procured from the open market cannot be added to the assessable value for levy of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing appeals filed by Shree Durga Industry and its partner Goldi Sethi against an order confirming a demand of Rs 3,32,10,665 in excise duty along with interest and penalties for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15 (up to May 2015).
Ready Rotis Classifiable as Bread, Not Ready-To-Eat Food; CESTAT Grants Nil Excise Duty
Case Title : Ready Roti India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50670 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 93
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that “Ready Roti/Halka Fulka” manufactured by Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. is classifiable as bread and not as packaged or instant food, and is therefore chargeable to a nil rate of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with an appeal against an order upholding excise duty demand, interest and penalty on the allegation that the appellant was manufacturing ready-to-eat packaged food without registration or payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.81 Crore Service Tax Demand on CII For Overseas Exhibitions
Case Title : Confederation of Indian Industry v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50606 Of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 94
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fees collected by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) from its members for facilitating participation in overseas business exhibitions are not liable to service tax under the category of “Business Exhibition Service”. The bench consists of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, was hearing an appeal filed by Confederation of Indian Industry (appellant) against an order confirming a service tax demand of over Rs. 1.81 crore along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Quashes Rs 3.47 Crore Duty Demand On Myntra Jabong, Says No Wilful Suppression
Case Title : Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55846 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 95
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Friday set aside a Rs 3.47 crore customs duty demand against Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked in a classification dispute. Allowing the appeal, The Tribunal noted that the company had deposited the entire differential duty along with interest before issuance of the show cause notice and that its failure to mention the zipper length in the imported jackets did not amount to wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.
Case Title : Gayatri Engineering v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : EXCISE Appeal No. 11170 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that MS frame parts, gland plates and MS tanks manufactured as per buyer-specific drawings for use in transformers cannot be treated as general articles of iron and steel. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential excise duty of Rs.3.69 lakhs raised against Gayatri Engineering, along with interest and penalty.
Service Tax Is Leviable On Repair Services Provided To Kolkata Metro: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. PPS International v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51505 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 February, held that repair and maintenance services rendered to the Kolkata Metro Railway are not eligible for tax exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, focussed on whether such services could be treated as exempt railway-related works and whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period to confirm the service tax demand.
No Excise Duty On Dolochar Generated During Sponge Iron Production: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75666 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 98
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 'dolochar' generated during the manufacture of sponge iron is an inevitable waste and not a manufactured excisable product. Therefore no central excise duty is payable on its clearance. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd., challenging the confirmation of excise duty along with interest and equal penalty imposed on the sale of dolochar.
No Bar On CENVAT Credit Where Supplementary Invoice Is Not Linked To Suppression: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr., CGST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 99
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February, allowed an appeal by Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit claimed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) is admissible where the additional duty arose due to an interpretational dispute and not on account of suppression or fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, which had upheld the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 23.36 lakh availed by the appellant during April 2016 to March 2017.
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Confirms ₹2.5 Lakh Profiteering By Kumar 70 MM For Ticket Price Hike Despite GST Cut
Case Title : DGAP vs. Kumar 70 MM
Case Number : NAPA/22/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 6
The Delhi Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 30 January 2026 held Hyderabad-based Kumar 70 MM cinema hall liable to deposit Rs. 2,50,148.39 for failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found that the theatre had raised ticket prices above normal MRP despite a GST rate reduction from 18% to 12% for tickets up to Rs. 100 and from 28% to 18% for tickets above Rs. 100.
GSTAT Delhi Upholds ₹90.9 Lakh Profiteering Finding Against Wai Wai Noodles Maker
Case Title : DGAP vs. C.G Foods
Case Number : NAPA/99/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has ordered C.G. Foods, the maker of Wai Wai instant noodles, to deposit Rs. 90.9 lakh after holding that the benefit of a GST rate cut was not passed on to consumers. The order was passed by a single-member bench of Anil Kumar Gupta, which agreed with the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering that the company increased base prices even after the tax rate on instant noodles was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from November 15, 2017.
Case Title : Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST
Case Number : APL/1/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 7
In its first paperless judgment delivered after fully virtual hearings and its first decision in a statutory second appeal, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that if allegations of fraud (Section 74 of the CGST Act) do not stand, the case cannot be converted into a normal short-payment proceeding (Section 73) and decided at the appellate stage. Since it became operational in September 2025, the tribunal had so far been dealing only with anti-profiteering matters. This is its first judgment in a matter outside that subject jurisdiction.
Case Title : DGAP vs. AJ Enterprises
Case Number : NAPA/2/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
Holding that the franchisee increased base prices on the very date the GST rate on restaurant services was reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent, the GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has upheld findings that a Pune-based Subway outlet at Amanora Mall profiteered ₹13,32,322 by neutralising the tax benefit meant for consumers. “The Respondent's action of increasing the base price on the very same date on which the notification reducing rate of tax came into force indicates that Respondent has willfully increased the basic price of the aforesaid items to maintain the same MRP that existed till 14.11.2017. Resultantly, the benefit of reduced tax rate could not be passed on to consumer,” Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held on Friday.
GSTAT Delhi Orders Panchsheel Buildtech To Return ₹98 Lakh To Homebuyers In Anti-Profiteering Case
Case Title : DGAP vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/59/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 9
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 February upheld an anti-profiteering charge against Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and directed it to return Rs. 98 lakh to homebuyers of its three Noida-based residential projects. Technical Member A. Venu Prasad found the company liable for profiteering for non-passing of the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal held that Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies and a penalty of 10 percent of the profiteered amount would be leviable if repayment was delayed beyond 20 March 2026.
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling
DMF, NMET Contributions Form Part Of Mining Royalty; GST Only On NMET: Telangana AAAR
Case Title : Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.
Case Number : Order-In-Appeal No. AAAR/1/2026
The Telangana State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that statutory payments made to the District Mineral Foundation and the National Mineral Exploration Trust are not voluntary contributions. It ruled that these payments are mandated amounts linked to mining royalty and made in the course and furtherance of business. GST, however, is payable only on NMET contributions and not on payments made to DMF.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Cigarettes Turn Costlier From Today As 40% Sin Tax Kicks In
Cigarettes will get 40% costlier from today, as higher taxes on tobacco products notified by the Union government take effect from February 1, 2026. The Ministry of Finance had issued the notification on December 31, 2025, replacing the GST compensation cess with a 40 per cent sin tax under the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While the notification was issued earlier, the revised levy becomes applicable from today.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Sharp Cuts In TCS On Overseas Travel, Education And Medical Remittances
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday also proposed significant reductions in tax collection at source (TCS) rates on overseas travel and certain foreign remittances. Presenting the direct tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a cut in TCS on foreign tour packages. “I propose to reduce TCS rate on the sale of overseas tour programme packages from the current 5 per cent and 20 per cent to 2 per cent, without any stipulation of amount,” she said.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Withdrawal Of Select Customs Exemptions, Tariff Simplification
The Union Budget 2026–27 proposed changes to India's customs duty framework aimed at simplifying the tariff structure and reducing long-standing distortions. Presenting her indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To further simplify the tariff structure, support domestic manufacturing, promote export competitiveness, and correct inversion in duty, I propose to remove certain long-continuing customs duty exemptions on items which are being manufactured in India or where imports are negligible.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 presented on Sunday proposed customs duty relief for personal imports and medicines used in the treatment of serious illnesses. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To rationalise the customs duty structure for goods imported for personal use, I propose to reduce the tariff rate on all dutiable goods imported for personal use from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed changes to customs rules governing baggage clearance during international travel to address passenger concerns and align duty-free allowances with current travel patterns. Presenting the indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “I propose to revise provisions governing baggage clearance during international travel to address genuine concerns of passengers.”
Budget Proposes Hike In Securities Transaction Tax On Futures And Options
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed an increase in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on futures and options trades. Presenting the Budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced higher STT rates for derivative transactions. “I propose to raise the STT on Futures to 0.05 per cent from the present 0.02 per cent,” she said.
Union Budget 2026: FM Proposes Rollout Of Customs Integrated System (CIS) In 2 Years
Presenting the Union Budget 2026, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the rollout of a new Customs Integrated System to overhaul customs processes. “I propose that a Customs Integrated System will be rolled out in two years as a single, integrated and scalable platform for all customs processes,” Sitharaman said.
AIDC Levy On Aircraft Tyres To Continue At 0.5 Percent After Budget 2026-27
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, as part of the Union Budget 2026–27, clarified that new pneumatic tyres of rubber used on aircraft will continue to attract Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) at 0.5%. The clarification applies to goods falling under tariff item 4011 30 00. AIDC is a customs duty levied under Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2021. It is charged on notified imported goods.
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a key change in the GST treatment of certain cross-border services, especially those provided by Indian intermediaries to overseas clients. Under the current GST regime, the place of supply for cross-border services is governed by Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. This section applies when either the supplier or the recipient of a service is located outside India.
Finance Bill, 2026 Proposes Enabling GST Appellate Tribunal To Hear Advance Ruling Appeals
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a change in the GST appellate framework that will allow the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear a limited category of advance ruling appeals. GSTAT will continue to function as the appellate forum for regular GST disputes such as classification, valuation, and input tax credit. The proposed change does not alter this role.
Changes In Interest Calculation For GST Monthly Return From January 2026; GSTN Issues Advisory
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory setting out changes to interest computation and related system features in the monthly return GSTR-3B (GST). The changes will apply from the January 2026 tax period onwards. From January 2026, interest shown in Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B (GST) will be calculated after adjusting the minimum cash balance available in the Electronic Cash Ledger from the due date of filing until the date of tax payment. The change follows the proviso to Rule 88B(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Interest will be worked out on the net tax liability for the period of delay.
UltraTech Cement Receives GST Demands of ₹15.26 Crore from Tamil Nadu Authorities
UltraTech Cement Limited recently informed stock exchanges that the State GST authorities in Tamil Nadu have issued two orders raising a cumulative tax demand of Rs. 15.26 crore, along with interest and penalties, on allegations of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. As per the disclosure, the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Trichy, and were received by the company on January 29, 2026.
Baggage Rules 2026 Allow Returning Indians To Bring Jewellery Upto 40 Gram Duty-Free
The Central Government has notified the Baggage Regulations, 2026, giving a limited category of international passengers a special duty-free allowance for jewellery. Under the Regulations , Indian residents and tourists of Indian origin who have lived abroad for more than one year can bring jewellery over and above their personal effects into India without paying customs duty, within specified limits.
CBIC Extends Deferred Import Duty Facility To Compliant Businesses From March 2026
On 1 February 2026, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) proposed extending the deferred payment of import duty facility to compliant businesses from 1 March 2026 through Notification No. 13/2026. Per the Notification, the facility will be available until 31 March 2028, and payments will be monitored through Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES) dashboards.
DGFT Imposes Import Curbs On Umbrellas With CIF Value Below ₹100
On 5 February 2026, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued a notification amending the import policy for umbrellas from “Free” to “Restricted”. The change applies to umbrellas classified under Chapter 66 of Schedule I (Import Policy) of India's Import Trade Classification (Harmonised System), 2022.
GSTN Introduces New Online Module To Unblock Barred Returns On Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has now launched a new “Application for Unbarring Returns” module on the GST Portal, allowing taxpayers to seek online removal of system-imposed restrictions on filing GST returns. The module provides a legal and digital process to address cases where returns are barred after three years of non-filing.
“Additional Notices” Now Merged With Main “Notices and Orders” Tab On GST Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has merged the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab with the main “Notices and Orders” section on the GST Portal, consolidating all issued notices and orders into a single interface. Taxpayers can now view all notices and orders on the portal by navigating to Dashboard → Services → User Services → View Notices and Orders.
No GST Dues Pending For Release To States, Centre's Response Informs Lok Sabha
In a written response to the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Finance Shri Pankaj Chaudhary clarified that the government has released Rs. 2,01,195 crore of GST compensation to States and Union Territories for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022. He further confirmed that no GST dues are currently pending for release to the States, except for Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, where final payments remain on hold due to the non-receipt of the required Accountant General (AG) certificates.
GSTN Activates Withdrawal Facility For Small Taxpayers To Opt Out Of Simplified Registration Option
As of 21 February 2026, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has activated the facility to file Form GST REG-32 for taxpayers who wish to opt out of registration under Rule 14A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. To mitigate compliance burdens, as part of the 'Next Generation GST Reforms', a Simplified GST Registration Scheme for Small and Low-Risk Businesses under Rule 14A was introduced in 2025.