SUPREME COURT
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VERSUS M/S WELKIN FOODS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 17
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 6) observed that the 'Aluminum Shelves' imported for mushroom cultivation cannot be classified as 'parts of agricultural machinery' but are liable to be classified as 'aluminium structures', attracting a customs duty.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan resolved the long-standing dispute over the classification of aluminium shelving systems used in mushroom farms for the purpose of attracting custom duty on the import of aluminium shelving. Moreover, the bench fundamentally restructures how goods are classified for customs duty and laid down seven-point mandatory framework by downgrading the routine reliance on the “common parlance” or “trade parlance” test and affirmed the primacy of express or implied statutory guidance flowing from tariff headings, section and chapter notes, HSN Explanatory Notes, and technical expressions used in the tariff entries.
GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Refund Not Hit By Limitation Applicable To Other Refunds: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number: Diary No. 56452/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 5
The Supreme Court has clarified that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of the amount deposited for filing a GST appeal once the appeal succeeds. It has further held that such a refund cannot be denied by applying the general GST refund law or its limitation period. The court held that the refund of a mandatory pre-deposit flows from the appellate mechanism itself and not from the general refund provisions (Section 54) of the GST law.
Heavy Earth Moving Machinery Not 'Motor Vehicles' Liable For Road Tax: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. The State Of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 9
The Supreme Court has recently held that Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM) and construction equipment vehicles used exclusively within private premises are not 'motor vehicles' liable to be taxed within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act).
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “We are of the conclusive opinion that the vehicles used by the appellants are vehicles of special types, precisely construction equipment vehicles which are suitable and are meant for use for operation and use within the industrial area/factory premises/ defined enclosed premises and are not meant for use on roads or public roads. They are off-road equipments and as such stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Act but also from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for use on roads only.”
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Four Accused In Fake ITC Case After Consistent Trial Appearance
Case Title: Sanjay Jain v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 8
Case Number: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8756, 8775, 8776 and 18530 of 2025
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to four persons accused of operating a network of fake firms to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST law. The top court held that their continuous appearance before the trial court amounted to “constructive custody” and that remanding them to jail would serve no useful purpose at this stage. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing appeals filed by the accused, who were arrested in 2021 by the CGST Commissionerate, Meerut, for offences under the CGST Act.
Supreme Court Holds Tiger Global's $1.6 Billion Flipkart Stake Sale Taxable In India
Case Title: The Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) & Ors. v. Tiger Global International II Holdings
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 12
On 15 January, the Supreme Court held that capital gains arising from Tiger Global's 1.6 billion USD stake sale in Flipkart to Walmart are taxable in India. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had quashed the tax demand based on an order of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR). The top court held that on preliminary assessment, the transaction was designed to avoid the payment of income tax in India.
Booking Speakers For Events Is Not Event Management, No Service Tax Under That Head: Supreme Court
Case Title: HT Media Limited v. Principal Commissioner, Delhi South Goods and Services Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 14
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 23525 - 23526 OF 2017
The Supreme Court has ruled that merely booking speakers through agents at an event does not amount to 'event management' and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under that category The Court held that fees paid by HT Media Limited to international speakers through overseas booking agencies for the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit were wrongly taxed under the Finance Act, 1994.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 18
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24729 of 2019
Case Title : Adani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court has held that the Union government cannot revive a customs duty levy that has already been declared unlawful by issuing subsequent or amended notifications imposing the same levy in a different form or at a different rate. A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by Adani Power Limited and set aside a 2019 judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had refused to grant refunds of customs duty paid on electricity supplied from a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to the domestic tariff area (DTA).
Supreme Court Upholds Odisha Entry Tax Act, Dismisses Tata Sponge Iron's Challenge
Case Title : Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. vs the State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 13502/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 24
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed Tata Sponge Iron Limited's challenge to the constitutional validity of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, and upheld the Orissa High Court's refusal to entertain the plea. The company had also sought a refund of entry tax collected by the State of Odisha. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale said there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's order.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union's Appeal Against Bombay High Court Ruling On IGST Penalties
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS A. R. SULPHONATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Case Number : DIARY NO. 72829/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 28
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union government challenging a Bombay High Court ruling, which held that, prior to a 2024 amendment, the Customs Tariff Act did not permit the levy of interest, penalty, confiscation, or redemption fine on Integrated Goods and Services Tax collected on imported goods. A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order after hearing the Additional Solicitor General for the Revenue and counsel for the importer.
Case Title : Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax, DGST Delhi vs Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2752/2026
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that educational consultancy services provided by Indian entities to foreign universities qualify as exports of services and are not taxable as intermediary services under the GST law. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue. The Court also extended by two months the time granted to the Department to process the refund as directed by the appellate authority.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CITATION : 2026LLBiz HC (ALL) 1
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1715 of 2025
Case Title : Rajvanti Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has held that while GST law allows proceedings to be pursued against a legal heir after the death of a taxpayer, authorities cannot determine tax liability in the name of a deceased person and then recover it from the heir. The court ruled that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits recovery from legal representatives only after a valid determination against them, and not through orders passed against a dead assessee.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 2
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 6706 of 2025
Case Title : Rc Sales And Services Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has once again made it clear that GST authorities cannot detain goods or impose penalties merely because of a wrong PIN Code in an e-way bill, if the addresses of the consignor and consignee are otherwise correct. A single-judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act are are not justified for clerical mistakes.
GST Act Does Not Require Toll Plaza Receipts To Prove Movement Of Goods: Allahabad High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 4
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 3829 of 2025
Case Title : Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that the GST law does not require an assessee (taxpayer) to produce toll plaza receipts to prove the physical movement of goods and that allegations of circular trading cannot be sustained on that basis. A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal set aside tax proceedings initiated against a registered supplier of agricultural goods and areca nuts, noting that the tax department was unable to point to any provision under the GST Act or Rules that mandates production of toll receipts.
Physical Service Of Notices Necessary After Cancellation Of GST Registration: Allahabad High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 5
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2026
Case Title : Sun Infrasite Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court on 19 January held that any adjudication notice issued after the cancellation of a GST registration must be served physically to the assessee to comply with the principles of natural justice. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a challenge against a notice issued to the petitioner three years after its GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner argued that it could not access the portal to which the notice had been uploaded, amounting to a violation of natural justice.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Ganpati Ispat v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 31263/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a notification merely defining or fixing the territorial jurisdiction of officers cannot be construed as conferring the power to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 conferred power on any authority or officer to initiate or conduct proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 4
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 26352
The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has held that tax authorities cannot recover unpaid taxes under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, from directors of the company unless they first clearly spell out the negligence or breach of duty alleged against them.
A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T. C. D. Sekhar clarified the scope of Section 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Solar Power EPC Contract Eligible for 8.9% GST, Quashes 18% Demand
Case Title: Vikram Solar Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 7
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 4420/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that contracts for setting up solar power generating systems cannot be taxed at 18% GST merely because they involve erection and commissioning work. Holding that such contracts are covered by a concessional GST notification, the court said tax must be levied at an effective rate of 8.9% and set aside a higher assessment raised by GST authorities.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses SEIL Plea Seeking Zero-Rated GST Refund On Power Supplied To PTC
Case Title: SEIL Energy India Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 8
Case Number: W.P.Nos.21938
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by SEIL Energy India Ltd., holding that the company's supply of electricity to Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd. cannot be treated as an export under GST, even though the electricity was ultimately sold to Bangladesh. Clarifying its views in the case, the court said the transaction between SEIL and PTC remained a domestic supply and did not qualify as a zero-rated supply eligible for a full refund of input tax credit.
Case Detail: Baratam Satish, Late Kameswara Rao Baratam (Now Deceased) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 8
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that GST authorities cannot initiate assessment or adjudication proceedings in the name of a deceased proprietor, even where the tax demand relates to a period when the business was active. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar clarified that Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, a provision that allows recovery of tax payable by deceased persons, does not authorise the initiation of fresh assessment proceedings against a dead person.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds 200% VAT Penalty On Trader For Bogus Bill Trading
Case Detail: Leela Sai Ram Trading vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 9
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a penalty equal to 200% of the tax imposed on an iron and steel trader for issuing false tax invoices without actual movement of goods to facilitate wrongful availment of input tax credit. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty of Rs 50.52 lakh levied under Section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for the period from June 2014 to June 2016.
GST Not Payable On Interest, Penalty For Delayed Chit Payments: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Ushabala Chits Private Limited v. The Commissioner of State Tax and Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No.14745 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 11
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that interest and penalties collected by a chit fund foreman from subscribers who delay payment of installments do not attract Goods and Services Tax, ruling that such amounts are exempt under GST law. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T. C. D. Sekhar said the foreman is legally required to ensure timely payment of the prize amount even if subscribers default.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Aerocom Cushions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 21
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2145 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Friday has set aside a GST show cause notice seeking to tax the assignment of long-term leasehold rights. The court held that such a transaction is a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and is not a taxable “supply” under the GST law. A division bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta said the tax department had wrongly treated the transaction as a service.
IGST Refund Claims Cannot Be Rejected Under Omitted Law: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 23
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 14854 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has held that refund claims cannot be thrown out on the basis of a statutory rule that no longer exists and must be looked at afresh once such a rule is omitted (deleted) without any saving clause. The court set aside orders rejecting Integrated Goods and Services Tax refunds claimed by Kelvion India Private Limited and sent the matter back to the tax department for a fresh decision.
GST Refund Cannot Be Withheld Over Proposed Appeal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ma Agro Proprietor & Anr. v. Dy Commissioner of State Tax, Sanpada 501
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15764 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 24
The Bombay High Court has held that GST authorities cannot refuse to comply with an appellate order directing a refund merely because an appeal against the order is contemplated. Such refusal is impermissible unless the appellate order is stayed or set aside. A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by Ma Agro Proprietor alleging non-compliance with an appellate order directing refund of GST along with interest.
Case Title: Nitor Infotech Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 22
The Bombay High Court has quashed a demand for additional stamp duty raised against an IT company. The court held that the expansion of an existing IT and IT-enabled services unit in a private IT park located within a Special Economic Zone is eligible for stamp duty exemption under Maharashtra's IT and ITES Policy, 2015. A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice R.N. Laddha allowed a writ petition filed by Nitor Infotech Pvt Ltd, setting aside an order demanding Rs 25.75 lakh as deficit stamp duty on a registered lease deed.
Bombay High Court Quashes Order In Vistex ITC Refund Case, Remands Issue For Holistic Review
Case Title : Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4852 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 38
The Bombay High Court has set aside an appellate order rejecting the refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) claimed by Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellate authority must examine ITC refund claims on export of services in light of the full service agreement and relevant circulars before treating a provider as an intermediary. The Court observed that a selective reading of clauses is insufficient and that the matter requires fresh and holistic consideration in accordance with law.
Mandatory Three-Month Gap Required Between GST Show Cause Notice And Final Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title : A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its authorized signatory and Director Ms. Suchishree Mukherjee W/o Sandeep Kunte vs. The Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 7941 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 44
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has set aside a GST adjudication after holding that tax authorities are required to maintain the statutory minimum gap of three months between issuing a show cause notice and passing the final order. The court said that failure to do so renders the proceedings unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta said, "we hold that it is mandatory to keep gap of three months between issuance of notice and passing final order under subsection (2) read with sub-section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST Act."
Bombay High Court Stays ₹57.29-Crore GST Demand Against Mad Over Donuts Operator
Case Title : Himesh Foods Pvt. Ltd Versus Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 46
The Bombay High Court has stayed a Rs 57.29 crore goods and services tax demand against Himesh Foods Pvt. Ltd., which operates the Mad Over Donuts chain. The court noted that companies facing the same tax issue have already received interim protection. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe referred to a December 2025 order passed in petitions filed by Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and other companies.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Notices Issued For Multiple Financial Years Together
Case Title : (M/s. AR Traders, through its proprietor Shri Abdul Rashid s/o Abdul Aziz Vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur – II & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 8397 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 45
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside two GST show cause notices issued to AR Traders after finding that the tax department had wrongly combined multiple financial years into single proceedings. A Division Bench of Jutsices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the GST law does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years in a single proceeding. The court said the notices issued to the firm did not follow the statutory framework governing tax periods and limitation.
Case Title : Shweta Aditya Malhotra Vs The Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 12021 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that stamp duty on a sale certificate issued pursuant to a court-monitored auction, including auctions conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, must be levied on the auction price and not on a higher market value independently assessed by stamp authorities. A Single Judge Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that once a property is sold through a transparent, court-supervised auction process, stamp authorities cannot reassess its value by applying independent valuation rules. The court said such reassessment would amount to stamp authorities sitting in appeal over a judicially supervised sale.
CENVAT Refunds For Deemed Exports Barred After One Year from End of Claim Period: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Inventys Research Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.1/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 52
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has recently held that a refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit linked to deemed exports must be filed within the one-year time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which governs refund claims under excise law. The court said this limitation applies even when the refund is sought under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which allows exporters to seek a refund of credit that cannot be utilised.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: S.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others
Case Number: WPA 11034 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that a GST registration cancellation order is unsustainable where the personal hearing is granted by one authority, but the final order is passed by another.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that, interestingly, while the notice for personal hearing was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Burrabazar Division, but the order impugned has been passed by the Superintendent. The order therefore defies the very well-settled principle that an order must be passed by the authority that hears the parties or that one who hears must decide.
Case Title: Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 3
Case Number: WPA 26130 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a petitioner's mere apprehension of business loss in West Bengal is not enough to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition.
A single-judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while dismissing a plea filed by a Kuwait company said that it is the infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a cause of action.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 11
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that cash does not fall within the definition of “goods” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law and, therefore, GST authorities have no power to seize cash unless it is directly relevant to proceedings under the Act. A bench comprising Justice Om Narayan Rai referred to Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, which expressly excludes money from the definition of “goods.”
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Over Reliance On Undisclosed Back Portal Data
Case Title: Vedant Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Jorasanko & Jorabagan Charge & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 20
Case Number: WPA 12654 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court recently set aside a GST demand raised against a transport company after holding that the tax department relied on undisclosed back-office data. Justice O.M. Narayan Rai held that the tax department relied on “data available in GST B.O. portal”, leaving the petitioner without an effective opportunity to respond.
Case Title : Chatterjee Concern, a Partnership Firm and Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 6739 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 29
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex parte order of the GST appellate authority passed due to non-appearance caused by the illness of the taxpayer's authorised consultant. It stressed that taxpayers cannot be penalised for circumstances beyond their control. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the appellate authority failed to grant the taxpayer a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Tax Authorities Cannot Exceed Scope of Show Cause Notice: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : M/s. Duakem Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Strand Road, Chinabazar and Rajakatra Charge & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 9951 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 31
The Calcutta High Court emphasised that a GST adjudicating authority cannot deny tax exemption on grounds that were never raised in the show cause notice. A Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai set aside an adjudication order passed against M/s Duakem Pharma Pvt. Ltd., observing that the proper officer exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by deciding an issue that was never put to the assessee for explanation.
Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance GST Liability Without Hearing Taxpayer: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Lakshmi Narayan Shah vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.
Case Number : WPA 6227 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 23
The Calcutta High Court on 14 January reiterated that a GST appellate authority cannot enhance taxable turnover or impose a higher rate of tax on grounds that were never part of the original adjudication, without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard. A Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai set aside an appellate order which enhanced the petitioner's taxable turnover by adding zero-rated supplies of Rs. 27 lakh and imposed GST at 18%, holding that such enhancement at the appellate stage violated the safeguards under the second proviso to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: M/s Eastman International v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number: WPT No. 228 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that exporters who do not carry out exports through Letters of Credit (LoCs) cannot be denied exemption from export duty on parboiled rice solely on the ground that they failed to satisfy an LoC-related condition in a temporary exemption notification.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the ruling while allowing the writ petition filed by a Ludhiana-based exporter engaged in the export of parboiled rice. The petitioner had challenged the levy and collection of 20 per cent export duty on its rice consignments during the brief period between 25 August 2023 and 15 October 2023.
Delhi HC
Can Service Tax Be Levied On Transfer of Development Rights? Delhi High Court To Decide
Case Name: Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi South vs. Baakir Real Estate Private Limited
The Delhi High Court on Monday took up a Revenue appeal that squarely raises the question of whether the transfer of development rights constitutes a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul issued notice in an appeal filed by the Service Tax Department against an order of the Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which had quashed a service tax demand of nearly Rs 5 crore raised on a real estate developer.
Can Customs Reopen Decade-Old Duty Drawback Claims? Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Title: Nautilus Metal Crafts Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: W.P.(C) 14040/2024 & CM APPL. 58767/2024
In March, the Delhi High Court is set to examine whether customs authorities can revive decade-old export transactions through belated show cause notices (SCNs) without running afoul of the doctrine of delay and laches.
On December 9, 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain heard a batch of petitions concerning the validity of SCNs issued in relation to the availment of duty drawback.
Case Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors
The Central Government has opposed before the Delhi High Court a public interest litigation (PIL) to declare air-purifiers as “medical devices” and for removing imposition of 18% GST on them.
In its affidavit, the Government has said that the GST Council is the sole Constitutionally designated body for making recommendations on matters pertaining to GST, and judicial interference in such matters would necessarily bypass the constitutionally mandated process.
GST | Wrong-State Tax Payment Triggers ₹10.91 Lakh Refund Fight For Vodafone Idea
Case Detail: Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST Division Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate (MCIE)
What began as a wrong-State GST payment has snowballed into a Rs 10.91 lakh refund dispute for Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Vi), after the Delhi GST Department rejected its refund claim. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene, noting that the dispute turned on how the refund period was selected while filing the application.
The case arose after Vi mistakenly paid State GST under its Delhi registration instead of its Uttar Pradesh registration. The company later paid the tax again in Uttar Pradesh in September 2023 and sought a refund of the amount deposited in Delhi.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 62
Case Number : W.P.(C) 655/2026
Case Title : GLO Interio v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward 15, Zone 2
The Delhi High Court has set aside the retrospective cancellation of GST registration despite the assessee's/taxpayer's delay in challenging the action, holding that a vague and non-speaking show cause notice denies the opportunity of a hearing to the assessee and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “we cannot be a blind spectator to the denial of opportunity of hearing as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the petitioner. A vague Show Cause Notice is nothing less than a document which is not providing sufficient and complete opportunity of hearing to the parties like the petitioner.”
Department Cannot Deny Interest On Delayed VAT Refund After Blaming Assessee: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Fair Deal Leather Suppliers v. The Value Added Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1220/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 66
The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department can't deny statutory interest on delayed Value Added Tax (VAT) refund by shifting the blame onto the taxpayer (assessee). A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a writ petition filed by an assessee seeking interest on VAT refund that had remained unpaid for 15 years despite the refund claim having attained finality through appeal proceedings.
Vague Show Cause Notice Can't Justify Retrospective GST Cancellation: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Glo Interio vs. Sales Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C)-655/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 62
The Delhi High Court recently held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively on the basis of a vague show cause notice, even where the appeal against such cancellation is delayed. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digipaul said the court cannot be a "blind spectator" to the denial of a proper opportunity of hearing, even where the proceedings are time-barred.
Uploading Show Cause Notice on 'Additional Notices' Tab Ineffective, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Anil Kumar vs. Sales Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(C) 843/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 87
The Delhi High Court, on 21 January 2026, remanded a matter back to the Proper Officer, noting that uploading a show cause notice under the 'Additional Notices' tab was not a valid service. A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside the demand order, allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and avail a personal hearing.
Case Title : MS Kanushi Enterprises v. Union Of India & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15894/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 82
The Delhi High Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the Customs Department's failure to implement its earlier judgment directing the release of duty drawback amounts to the petitioners, despite the Supreme Court having dismissed the Department's special leave petition (SLP). A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking implementation of the Court's judgment dated February 13, 2025.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Rejects Bail Plea In ₹8.59 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title: Bahadur Islam v. The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 1
Case Number: Bail Appln./3839/2025
The Gauhati High Court has recently denied bail to a petitioner in Rs. 8.59-crore fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) scam, observing that the allegations disclose an organized and well-planned fraud involving misuse of the GST system. A bench comprising Justice Pranjal Das noted that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation was at a crucial stage and that granting bail could hamper efforts to unearth the larger conspiracy.
Case Title: Barluit Organic Farmers Producer Company Limited Vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/6502/2025
The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that cancellation of a GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns does not permanently shut the door on restoration, so long as the taxpayer later files all pending returns and clears tax dues along with interest and late fees. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that even where registration has been cancelled for prolonged non-compliance, the proper GST officer continues to have the authority to revive it upon full compliance.
Gauhati High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation For Giving Only 7 Days To Respond
Case Title: Shobnam Ara Begom Mazumder @ Sabnamara Begum Mazumder v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (Gau) 3
Case Number: WP(C) No. 6789 of 2025
The Gauhati High Court has set aside the cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration, holding that although a notice was issued, the GST authorities failed to grant the mandatory time required under law to respond. Justice Manish Choudhury, allowing the writ petition filed by Shobnam Ara Begom Mazumder, held that the cancellation was invalid because the taxpayer was not given the mandatory 30 days to respond and was instead allowed only seven days.
Gauhati High Court Stays GST Demand On Flats Given For Free To Landowners
Case No. WP(C)/20/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(Gau) 4
The Gauhati High Court on 7 January stayed coercive action pursuant to a GST demand raised on flats provided free of cost to landowners under a development agreement. A Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia was hearing a writ petition filed by a developer challenging a consolidated show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), covering multiple financial years from 2017–18 to 2022–23.
Gujarat HC
GST| Tobacco In Small Retail Packs Classifiable As 'Chewing Tobacco': Gujarat High Court
Case Detail: Patel Products vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court, in a bunch of matters concerning classification of Raw Tobacco Leaves packed and sold in retail pouches, were classifiable as 'Chewing Tobacco' irrespective of whether it was scented, fermented or liquored and re-packed or re-labelled.
In a recent judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, rejected the Tobacco Manufacturers stance that Tobacco without being fermented or liquored ceases to be a “Chewing Tobacco”. It was held that processes such as drying cleaning, sieving, sizing, cutting, and packaging into retail pouches would satisfy three important parameters (i) distinct name (ii) distinct character and (iii) distinct use, resulted in 'Manufacture' under GST.
Gujarat High Court Clarifies GST Treatment Of Amalgamations, Declines IGST Refund Relief To Alstom
Case Title : M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 11025 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 7
The Gujarat High Court on 23 January dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking IGST refunds on exports made prior to amalgamation, while authoritatively clarifying the statutory framework governing registration, refund claims and transfer of input tax credit in cases of corporate amalgamation under the GST regime.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the petitions filed by Alstom Transport India Limited, holding that both the taxpayer and the jurisdictional officers had failed to adhere to the mandate of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder while recording concern over the manner in which GST authorities were dealing with registration issues arising from amalgamations.
Rectification Of GST Returns Permissible Where There Is No Revenue Loss: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court held that inadvertent errors in GST returns can be rectified, provided there is no loss of revenue, and directed the authorities to facilitate amendment of GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B for the initial years of GST rollout.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by an authorized dealer of TATA Motors, permitting rectification of monthly returns electronically or manually. The Bench referred to the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Star Engineers, which applied a purposive interpretation of the GST law to allow rectification of inadvertent errors in returns.
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of GST Appeal Over 13-Day Delay
Case Title : R P Chemicals Through Partner Atulkumar Jivanlal vs. Superintendent CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15136 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 8
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside an appellate order rejecting a GST appeal solely on the ground of a 13-day delay, holding that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its discretion under the law despite having the power to condone the delay. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the delay fell within the additional 30-day condonable period available beyond the 90-day statutory limitation under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
GST Not Payable On Transfer Of Leasehold Rights: Gujarat High Court Directs Refund
Case Title : Aquaeva Chemtech Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 621 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 9
The Gujarat High Court, recently relying on its earlier ruling, reiterated that transferring or assigning leasehold rights in land is equivalent to the sale of land and therefore does not constitute a taxable 'supply' under the GST framework. A Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a petition filed by Aquaeva Chemtech Private Limited, which had challenged the withholding of its GST refund relating to the transfer of leasehold rights in an industrial plot.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹16.72 Lakh GST Input Tax Credit Demand After Tax Is Paid
Case Title: Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (HP) 4
Case Number: CWP No. 20174 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a tax demand of Rs 16.72 lakh raised against Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. for the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The court held that the subsequent payment of tax along with interest by the supplier cannot be ignored while examining the sustainability of a demand raised against the recipient, even if such compliance takes place after a delay of more than five years.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title: Bharat Oil Traders v. Assistant Commissioner & anr.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 192/2023
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the 2019 amendment to the GST law changing the limitation period for claiming refund of unutilised input tax credit cannot be applied retrospectively to deny refund claims relating to periods prior to 1 February 2019.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem while deciding a writ petition filed by Bharat Oil Traders, a partnership firm engaged in the refilling and sale of edible oil and ghee.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Pali Hill Breweries Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others (along with connected matters)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(JHA)1
Case Number: WP (T) No. 3228 of 2021
The Jharkhand High Court on Monday struck down a proviso introduced by a state amendment to the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 that allowed electricity duty to be levied as a percentage of consumers' “net charges”. The court held that the legislature had delegated its taxing power to the executive without laying down any policy guidance.
It further held that empowering the state government to fix electricity duty on a value-based formula, without prescribing standards or limits, amounted to excessive delegation of legislative power and conferred unfettered discretion on the executive.
Case Title : Manoj Kumar Singh v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 7467 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Jhar) 2
The Jharkhand High Court on 21 January, set aside an appellate order that denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a taxpayer, clarifying that credit cannot be denied solely for filing returns beyond the original deadline if subsequent statutory amendments expressly allow it. In a case where the taxpayer claimed ITC for FY 2018-19, the Court noted that once Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 was inserted, registered persons became entitled to claim ITC for past financial years provided their returns were filed within the extended timeline of 30 November 2021. Appellate authorities must reconsider claims in light of this amendment and related CBIC clarifications.
Karnataka HC
No GST On Liquidated Damages For Breach Of Contract: Karnataka High Court Quashes SCN
Case Title: M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16471 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that liquidated damages recovered for breach or delay in contractual obligations are compensatory in nature and do not constitute consideration for any supply under GST.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined whether the amount paid as compensation by the Lending Service Provider (LSP) to the assessee constituted 'liquidated damages' and whether such amount was taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 21566 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that flavoured milk qualifies as a dairy product under Tariff Heading 0402 and not as a 'beverage' under Tariff Heading 2202. Consequently, GST at 5% will be applicable on flavoured milk instead of 12%.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined the classification of the flavoured milk under the GST, considering whether it falls under Tariff Heading 2202 (beverages containing milk) or under Tariff Heading 0402 (milk and cream, containing added sugar or sweetening matter).
Case Title: Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.15066/2025
The Karnataka High Court held that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in GST offences punishable with imprisonment up to five years, even though such offences are economic in nature. The bench further stated that the prescribed punishment under the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act must be considered while determining the gravity of the offence.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated that one of the most prominent criminal sanctions imposed with regard to economic offences is that of arrest. It is widely acknowledged that arrests result in deprivation of liberty of a person. Thus, while it is imperative to maintain law and order in society, the power to arrest must also always be subject to necessary safeguards.
Case Title: M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.25598 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court held that marketing and technical support services provided by the assessee to its foreign parent qualify as export of services under the IGST Act (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) and do not constitute intermediary services.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the place of supply of these services is outside India, satisfying all conditions for export of services, and the assessee is eligible for a refund of IGST paid.
Case Title: Parisons Foods Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 4
Case Number: Writ Petition No13082 OF 2025
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mandatory pre-deposit required to pursue a customs appeal cannot be waived for a financially sound appellant/importer.
In a recently uploaded order pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act does not deny access to justice.
Case Title: Homag India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 5
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.27378 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund claim as time-barred, holding that the limitation period must be computed from the date on which the taxpayer originally applied for the refund and not from a revised application filed after a deficiency memo. The bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar observed that, in the instant case, the refund application filed on July 4, 2024 was well within the prescribed limitation period and that a subsequent application filed pursuant to a deficiency memo could not be treated as a fresh filing for the purpose of computing limitation.
Differential GST On Pre-GST Works Contracts To Be Reimbursed By State Agencies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: N.R. Kulkarni NRK Construction Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 6
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 145682 OF 2020
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the additional GST liability arising out of the shift from the pre-GST VAT (Value Added Tax) regime to the GST regime in ongoing works contracts cannot be imposed on contractors. The bench consists of Justice M Nagaprasanna, who directed the State Departments and government agencies to reimburse the differential GST to contractors.
Karnataka High Court Refuses Daughter's Plea For Parents' Interim Bail In GST Evasion Case
Case Detail: E. Ishitha & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Bangalore
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 8
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 23 of 2026 (GM -RES)
The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant interim bail to a husband and wife arrested in a GST enforcement action, holding that the case did not present circumstances warranting the court's intervention at the writ stage. A Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, in an order pronounced on January 12, noted that the court did not find any illegality in the manner of arrest and that statutory remedies for seeking bail were already available under criminal law.
Services For Private Railway Sidings Are Exempt From Tax: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. P.J.B. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 12 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 11
The Karnataka High Court on 8 January held that services rendered for the construction of private railway sidings are eligible for service tax exemption. A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind was hearing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East Commissionerate, challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Kerala HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 7
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7697 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court has held that assessment proceedings initiated beyond the statutory limitation period under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act), are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon noted that the pre-assessment notice under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act was issued against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the assessment year 2007–08 only on August 25, 2017. The assessment order was passed later, on January 28, 2019. This was beyond the 4-year limitation prescribed under the Act.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 10
Case Number : WA NO. 111 OF 2026
Case Title : Vinod Mukundan v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Monday granted interim relief to retired employees and family pensioners of Union Bank of India. It directed the Union government, GST authorities, and Union Bank of India not to levy GST on health insurance premiums paid under the group medical insurance policy for the policy year 2025–26. A Division Bench of Justices V.G. Arun and Harisankar V. Menon passed the order while admitting a writ appeal against a Single Bench decision.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Against Detention Of Hindustan Coca-Cola's Goods In GST Dispute
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 9
Case Number : WA NO. 1659 OF 2020
Case Title : The Assistant State Tax Officer & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the state tax authorities against Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited over the detention of its goods during transit under the GST Act. The court held that the detention was not justified because the consignment was accompanied by all required documents. A Division Bench of Justice V.G. Arun and Justice Harisankar V. Menon said proceedings under Section 129 of the Central and State GST Acts were not called for in the facts of the case.
Assessee Entitled To Discharge Certificate Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme Despite Portal Closure
Case Title : Geo Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 502 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 13
On 19 January, the Kerala High Court held that the Central tax authorities are legally obliged to issue a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019, once the assessee has paid the full settlement amount within the prescribed time. The Court clarified that the non-functioning of the online portal cannot justify withholding the certificate. In such an event, the certificate had to be issued manually, establishing that payment under the scheme creates a binding statutory right to receive the discharge certificate.
Kerala High Court Holds GST Portal Upload As Valid Service, Dismisses Petition Filed After Two Years
Case Title: Dhanyamol V v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 113 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 14
On 19 January, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Abhinaya Digital Solutions challenging a GST demand order, holding that uploading an order on the GST portal constitutes valid service and that a challenge filed more than two years after the order suffers from unexplained delay. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. declined to entertain the petition against an assessment order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking recovery of input tax credit claimed on closing stock as of 30 June 2017.
Tax Authorities Must Return Title Deed Given As Security Or Certify Its Loss: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Bash-P-International v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 30631 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 15
The Kerala High Court has clarified that where an assessee furnishes an original title deed to the tax Department as security, the authorities are duty-bound either to trace and return the document or to formally certify that it has been irretrievably lost. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., by a judgment delivered on 16 January, was deciding a writ petition filed by M/s Bash-P-International, a partnership firm earlier registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
Two-Year GST Refund Limitation Starts From Date Of Correct Payment: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 40664 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 17
Earlier this month, the Kerala High Court held that the two-year limitation period under the GST law to claim refunds begins from the date on which tax is paid under the correct head, and not from the date of an earlier mistaken payment. The ruling was delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while allowing a writ petition filed by Pushpagiri Medical Society, a registered non-profit organisation running a hospital and medical education institutions in Kerala.
Exemption Claims Under Kerala Building Tax Act Must Be Referred To Government: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s VPK Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 20284 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 18
The Kerala High Court on 14 January held that when a claim for exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act is raised, statutory authorities are obliged to refer the matter to the State Government and cannot independently reject the claim while completing assessment proceedings. The ruling was delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while allowing a writ petition filed by M/s VPK Motors Pvt. Ltd., which runs a Toyota dealership at Kannur, challenging the levy of building tax on its premises housing a showroom, workshop, and service centre.
Madhya Pradesh HC
No Review Of Writ When GSTAT Appeal Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6
Case Number : Review Petition No. 2479 of 2025
Case Title : Vansh Trading Com. Through Proprietor Ravi Arvind Yadav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others
In a case involving bogus invoicing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 January reiterated that when an appellate remedy is available before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), review of an earlier order which declined a writ petition was not warranted. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a review petition against its 5 August 2025 decision, which had relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before GSTAT.
Case Title : Dheeraj Gupta vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number : Misc. Criminal
Case No. 40741 of 2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a GST fraud case but with a strict condition. The court has ordered him to share his location with investigators by dropping a Google Map pin, warning that any breach would cancel the protection. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt passed the order on January 15, 2026, while allowing the anticipatory bail plea filed by Dheeraj Gupta. The Court said custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage and observed that detaining the applicant would adversely affect his business.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Demand For Not Considering CBIC Circulars Cited By Taxpayer
Case Name: Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 1
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST demand on a corporate guarantee after finding that the tax department failed to consider CBIC circulars relied upon by the taxpayer while raising the assessment.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice G R Swaminathan held that an assessment order cannot survive if the tax department fails to consider the defence raised by the taxpayer.
Madras High Court Quashes CESTAT Chennai Order For Deciding Issues Not Under Appeal
Case Title: Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 4
Case Number: CMA.No. 836 of 2018
The Madras High Court has pulled up the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for overstepping its mandate, quashing its order and holding that the Tribunal cannot decide issues that were never appealed before it.
A Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi said that although Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide powers on the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, those powers are not unbridled.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 13
Case Number : W.P.Nos.48776
Case Title : Tvl. Baqir Brothers v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
After a Chennai-based trader received two separate GST assessment orders for the same financial year, the Madras High Court remanded the matter for consolidated adjudication by a single authority.
A single-judge bench of Justice C Saravanan noted that, for the same tax period, “two officers who are the Respondents in the respective Writ Petitions filed respective impugned orders,” and proceeded to consider the grievance raised by the trader.
GST Late-Fee Amnesty Benefit Cannot Be Denied To Early Annual Return Filers: Madras High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 7
Case Number : W.P.Nos.27029
Case Title : Kandan Hardware Mart v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
The Madras High Court has held that GST-registered persons who filed their annual returns before the amnesty scheme cannot be denied its benefit merely because the GST Council did not address their situation in its meeting. The amnesty scheme, notified in March 2023, capped the maximum late fee for delayed filing of GSTR-9 (annual GST returns) at Rs 10,000 per financial year for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22.
Case Title: Kanthan Associates v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 14
Case Number: WP No. 48149 of 2025
Reiterating that additional GST arising from the rollout of the GST regime in government works contracts must be borne by the procuring authority, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider a contractor's claim for reimbursement of differential tax. A Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar relying on settled law, held that contractors cannot be fastened with liability for differential GST, interest, or penalties when tax was discharged strictly in accordance with the payment certifications issued by the government authority.
Imported Parts Alone Don't Justify Higher Sales Tax On Car Audio Systems: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. Nippon Audiotronix Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C.(R).No.5 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 31
The Madras High Court has ruled, in a dispute over the tax treatment of Kenwood-branded car audio systems, that the use of imported components does not by itself make the finished product an imported good, holding that “the parts do not, by themselves, constitute a complete car audio system”. A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar was deciding whether Nippon Audiotronix's car audio systems were taxable at 12.5 percent as domestic goods or at 20 percent as imported products under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Case Title : Fone Zone NXT v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 888/2026 & Connected Matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 81
The Delhi High Court has refused to restore a trader's cancelled GST registration, observing that it is “very easy to blame a professional” after the firm attributed its failure to respond to tax notices to its Chartered Accountant. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Fone Zone NXT, a proprietorship firm dealing in mobile phones and allied accessories. The firm had challenged the cancellation of its GST registration and ex parte assessment orders passed by the Delhi GST authorities.
New Limitation Plea Without Records Not Maintainable Before CESTAT: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd. v. Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number : CMA No. 3435 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 33
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., holding that a plea on limitation cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting factual material on record. A Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice P. Dhanabal observed that limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be examined by a court or tribunal in the absence of necessary evidence.
'Ignoring Precedent Is Judicial Indiscipline': Madras High Court Restores Service Tax Refund
Case Title : Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A. Nos.1453 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 35
The Madras High Court has reiterated that service tax paid under a mistake of law must be refunded and that such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation, while setting aside orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai that had denied a refund to a software services exporter. The Court said, “The Tribunal, by ignoring the precedents laid down by the higher Forums, passed the order, thereby it amounts to violation of the core principle of Judicial Discipline.”
Case Title : The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. Nos.19298
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 36
The Madras High Court recently held that customs duty on a vessel is fixed on the date of its import and cannot be reopened later merely because the vessel is converted from foreign-going to coastal run. The court said a later change in how the vessel is operated does not create a fresh tax liability. A bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the date of import is the only point that matters for determining liability under the customs law.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte GST Order Over Notice Sent To VAT-Era Email
Case Title: Ashis Ranjan Sahu v. The Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha and others
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 2
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.9871 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has recently set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order after finding that the tax department proceeded without ensuring that the show cause notice had actually reached the assessee, as it was sent to an email ID used during the VAT regime. A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said that once a person is treated as an unregistered taxpayer after the introduction of GST, the burden lies on the department to verify effective service of notice.
Legal Heirs Not Assessees Under Service Tax; Proceedings Abate After Death: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kanakalata Senapati v. The Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise & Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 5
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 29819 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has recently held that legal heirs of an individual service provider cannot be treated as assessees under the service tax law and that proceedings abate upon the assessee's death even if a show cause notice was issued earlier. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside a service tax demand raised against the deceased assessee, observing that the Finance Act, 1994, does not authorise the tax department to proceed against legal heirs for liabilities allegedly incurred by a deceased individual.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd
Case Number: OTAPL No. 50 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 4
The Orissa High Court has rejected the customs department's argument that test reports issued by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory should be given primacy over load-port test reports issued by a NABL-accredited private laboratory and dismissed a revenue appeal against Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. in an iron ore export duty dispute.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman declined to interfere with a December 4, 2024 order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, which had set aside a Rs 13.50 crore export duty demand raised against the company. The court held that the department's appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.
Orissa High Court Quashes ₹8.62-Crore Ex-Parte GST Demand Against Jindal Steel
Case Title : Jindal Steel Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Goods and Service Tax Odisha
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.25955 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 6
The Orissa High Court has set aside an ex-parte GST demand raised against Jindal Steel Limited, holding that mere uploading of notices under the “Additional Notices/Orders” tab on the GST portal does not constitute valid service and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found that the taxpayer was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the State Tax Officer.
Orissa High Court Directs GST Dept to Pay 6% Interest On IGST Refunds For Ocean Freight
Case Title : M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.11618 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 7
The Orissa High Court on 22 January directed the GST authorities to pay interest to M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, a fertilizer company on the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunded on ocean freight. It held that the tax had been collected without the authority of law and that interest must follow as a matter of restitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman allowed the company's writ petition challenging the rejection of its claim for interest on the refunded amount.
Patna HC
Case Title: Alok Pandey v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 15636 of 2025
The Patna High Court has relaxed an excessive penalty of 90% of Insurance Declared Value (IDV) to 10% on a motorcycle seized in a liquor-related offence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held that, considering the quantum of liquor (18 litres), applying Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, which prescribes 10% of the insured value as the minimum penalty.
Case Title: Sikandar Ajam v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 3
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20217 of 2025
The Patna High Court has slashed a 50 percent penalty imposed for releasing a rental car seized with nearly 318 litres of liquor. It ordered that the vehicle be released on payment of 30 percent of its insured value and struck down an additional 3 per cent charge as illegal.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey noted that the vehicle owner was not an accused in the case and said the confiscation orders needed correction.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Varun Fabs Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 1
Case Number: CWP-5956-2009
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that the textile committee cess cannot be imposed on independent dyeing and processing units. It held that fabric processing on a job-work basis does not amount to “manufacture” under the Textile Committee Act, 1963.
The bench, consisting of Justices Jagmohan Bansal and Amarinder Singh Grewal, stated that the respondent (department) is attempting to borrow the definition of 'manufacture' from the Central Excise Act, read with the Central Excise Tariff Act, to levy cess on independent processors.
Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Company Director In Fraudulent ITC Availment Case
Case Title: Baldeep Singh Sapra v. State (Directorate General of GST Intelligence), Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 2
Case Number: Criminal Mis. No. M-47385 of 2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a GST accused after noting the challenge that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing. The Court reiterated that failure to give written grounds violates statutory safeguards and weakens an accused's right to seek bail. Justice Surya Partap Singh granted bail to Baldeep Singh Sapra, Director of PMI Smelting Private Limited. He was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in a case alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of about Rs30.21 crore.
Rajasthan HC
Can GST Be Levied On Sale of Vacant Land? Rajasthan High Court To Examine
Case Title : Ashish Garg v the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd
Case Number : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20007/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 1
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd on a petition raising the issue of whether GST can be levied on the sale of vacant land in relation to an e-auction. Justice Maneesh Sharma, while hearing the matter, directed that the respondents shall not cancel the subjected e-auction if the petitioner deposits the demand amount excluding the disputed GST component within 15 days.
Tripura HC
CGST |Tripura High Court Reads Down Section 16(2)(c), Shields Bona Fide Buyers From ITC Denial
Case Title: Sahil Enterprises v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 1
Case Number: WP(C) No.688 of 2022
The Tripura High Court has read down Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that while Input Tax Credit can be claimed only if the tax charged by the supplier is paid to the Government, the provision cannot be applied to deny credit to a bona fide purchaser for the supplier's default.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice S Datta Purkayastha observed that while Parliament is competent to impose conditions on the availment of ITC, Section 16(2)(c), if applied without distinction, “places an onerous burden on a bona fide purchasing dealer.”
CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Auto Stores (India) v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 87893 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that merely because penetrating oil contains petroleum fractions exceeding 70%, it cannot be treated as adulterated diesel unless the revenue proves actual adulteration.
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that ……In the penetrating oil, the basic elements of which are more than 80% petroleum hydrocarbon and other additives, the presence of more than 70% hydrocarbon, including lighter hydrocarbons, as found in the test examination report, would not be considered as unusual.
Case Title: Mr Ali Akbar Ratansi v. Commissioner of CGST Mumbai West
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 85821 OF 2023
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a penalty under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be imposed on a director unless it is established that the director was responsible for the company's business and was knowingly involved in the tax evasion.
C J Mathew (Technical Member) referred to Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 and noted that the prerequisites for imposition of penalty under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 are that the director concerned was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of such company and was knowingly concerned with such contravention.
Case Title: Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 51840 of 2024
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a central excise demand of ₹96.02 lakh raised against Bridgestone India Private Limited, holding that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked by the department.
A Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member–Technical) while hearing the appeal filed by Bridgestone India against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the demand of excise duty along with interest and penalty for the period April 2017 to June 2017. The demand arose from an audit objection alleging that excess CENVAT credit was received through an Input Service Distributor (ISD) in violation of Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title: M/s Kasturi International Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICS (Import)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51553 of 2022
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that mere denial of a customs exemption due to wrong classification of goods does not, by itself, render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, unless the exemption was conditional and such condition stood breached.
The Tribunal clarified that where the Revenue's case is that the importer was not entitled to the exemption at all, and not that any condition attached to the exemption was violated, the statutory requirements of Section 111(o) are not attracted.
Case Title: M/s R.D. Clay Mines Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Jodhpur
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 55087 of 2023
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has remanded a service tax demand raised on mining royalty paid to the State Government, holding that where the mining lease was executed prior to 1 April 2016, the applicability of service tax must be examined in light of the negative list regime under the Finance Act, 1994 .
The Bench, comprising Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), noted that the mining lease agreements were neither produced before the adjudicating authority nor before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of the lease agreements on record, the Tribunal held that the issue could not be conclusively decided at this stage.
Case Title: Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise - Gandhinagar
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (GUJ) 9
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 10866 of 2020- DB
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that crop compensation charges paid to farmers for laying electricity transmission lines are not liable to service tax. A coram of Judicial Member Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh said these payments are compensatory in nature and not consideration for any service.
Mere Stock Shortage Not Proof Of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title: Rana Sugar Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Meerut
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (ALL) 8
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 70653 of 2019
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Allahabad has held that a shortage of goods found during a departmental inspection cannot, by itself, justify allegations of clandestine removal. The final outcome came after a split verdict was resolved by a third member, S.S. Garg, who agreed that stock shortages alone cannot be treated as proof of illegal clearances.
CESTAT Mumbai Reiterates 10% Customs Duty Benefit On Enterprise Ethernet Switches
Case Detail: Digisol System Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs-Goa
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 86427 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 10
Reiterating that customs authorities cannot deny a concessional duty without objective evidence, the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed Digisol Systems' appeal and extended the benefit of 10% customs duty on imported enterprise Ethernet switches and transceivers.
A bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Prathiban was hearing an appeal filed by Digisol Systems, a provider of IT networking solutions and consultancy services catering to enterprise and institutional customers.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 11
Case Detail: Yash Oro India Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal NO. 50911 OF 2025
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty-free benefits available to imports from Least Developed Countries merely because an import licence issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade refers to a separate concessional duty notification. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a customs duty demand, along with interest, penalty, and redemption fine, against Yash Oro India Private Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows CENVAT Credit On Kinder Joy Plastic Toys Despite Excise Exemption On Toys
Case Detail: Dream Plast India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 12
Case Number: Excise Appeal No: 85887 OF 2016
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs and capital goods used to make plastic toys supplied with Kinder Joy chocolates. It held that such credit cannot be denied only because the toys were exempt from central excise duty.
Chilly Seeds Imported For Sowing Cannot Be Classified As 'Spices': CESTAT
Case Title: Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals)
Citations: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 13
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50492 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that chilly seeds imported exclusively for sowing cannot be treated as “spices” under the Customs Tariff and must instead be classified as seeds used for sowing under Chapter 12. A coram led by President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside a 2016 order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had upheld a higher duty on such imports.
Mid-Day Meal Scheme: CESTAT Grants Service Tax Relief To Government Catering Institute
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (PB) 15
Case Title: Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology v. Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53928 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to a government-run catering institute that supplies Mid-Day meals to the UT education department. It reiterated that the preparation and supply of cooked food under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme does not amount to 'outdoor catering' and is therefore not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai Allows Nissan Group SEZ Unit's Claim For Refund Of Service Tax Paid
Case Title: Renault Nissan Technology And Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & CE
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 14
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40118 of 2014
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has ruled in favour of Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India, holding that service tax refund claims of Special Economic Zone units cannot be rejected only because they were filed late. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao said the six-month time limit in Notification No. 9/2009 Service Tax is procedural. It cannot defeat the statutory exemption under the SEZ law.
Case Title: Fortis Healthcare Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-II
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 15
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51988 of 2015
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently held that Fortis Healthcare is not liable to pay service tax on infrastructure and administrative facilities provided to visiting doctors. A coram of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar said the arrangement was part of delivering medical treatment and not a separate taxable service.
Joint Venture MoU For Sugar Mill Modernisation Not Taxable: CESTAT Chandigarh
̌Case Title: M/s Nawanshahr Cooperative Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60878 of 2018
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that amounts received by a sugar mill under a co-generation and modernisation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) cannot be treated as consideration for renting of immovable property and are therefore not liable to service tax. Setting aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 21 lakh, the Bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that in the case at hand, the arrangement between the parties was in the nature of a joint venture and did not involve any service provider–service recipient relationship.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, GST, Medchal Commissionerate vs. Mayora India Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (ALL) 19
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 30178 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, answering a reference made after conflicting rulings by its Hyderabad and Ahmedabad benches, has held that Kopiko, the coffee-flavored candy sold in India, is classifiable as sugar confectionery under the central excise tariff and not as a coffee-based preparation. As a result, the product falls under tariff heading 1704 9090, which attracts 6% excise duty, and not under heading 2101 1200, which carries a 12% duty.
Customs Cannot Withhold Part Of Consignment After Accepting Full Bond, Guarantee : CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: Atul Automation Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 4
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76064 of 2025 Final Order Nos. 77912-77915/2025
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that Customs authorities were not justified in continuing to detain part of a consignment of used digital multifunction print and copying machines once the importers had furnished the required bond and bank guaranteef for the entire consignment.
A coram consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K Anpazhakan directed provisional release of 63 machines that had been withheld, noting that selective detention in such circumstances was arbitrary and discriminatory.
CESTAT Chandigarh Restores Customs Broker Licence Over Violation Of Regulatory Timelines
Case Title: Secon Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 5
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 60324 of 2022
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chandigarh has set aside the suspension of a customs broker's licence after finding that the authorities themselves failed to follow the timelines laid down under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Calling the delay fatal, the tribunal directed that the licence be restored within four weeks.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice S S Garg and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar said the time limits under the regulations could not be brushed aside.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Customs Duty Demand On Bharti Airtel In Router Parts Classification Dispute
Case Title: Bharti Airtel Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 6
Appeal Number: Customs Appeal No. 50033 of 2024
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, on Tuesday quashed the levy of differential customs duty on telecom major Bharti Airtel Limited.
It held that the imported router components were classifiable as “parts of routers” and not as “Network Interface Cards (NICs) or standalone communication apparatus” under the customs tariff.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax Demand Based Only On Service Tax–Income Tax Return Mismatch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 17
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85019 of 2024
Case Title : One Vibgyor Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST Mumbai East Commissionerate
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside a service tax demand that was raised on the basis of a mismatch between income tax returns and ST-3 returns (half-yearly service tax returns filed under the pre-GST regime). The tribunal noted that the demand was confirmed without proper service of notice and without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.
Free Materials In Works Contracts Pre-July 2009 Excludible From Service Tax: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 20
Case Detail: Jagaji Construction Company vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vadodara
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 10009 of 2014- DB
On 15 January, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the value of free materials provided under an indivisible Works Contract cannot be included in taxable value for service tax purposes for contracts executed before 7 July 2009.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh set aside the portion of the service tax demand calculated on 933.355 MT of steel, valued at Rs. 2.56 crore, against the appellant construction company, and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to redetermine the service tax liability and penalties.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 21
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL No. 843 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 844 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 852 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 911 of 2009
Case Title : Prakash Jokhani vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and connected matters
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, has set aside a CENVAT credit demand against a textile exporter, holding that credit could not be denied merely because Rule 12B, which earlier allowed textile traders using job workers to pay excise duty and take credit as manufacturers, was later omitted from the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A bench of Judicial Member S K Mohanty and Technical Member M M Parthiban said the issue was covered by existing law and circulars.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Hyundai Transys India Private Limited with M/s.Hyundai Transys India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 24
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40335 of 2024, Customs Appeal No. 40292 of 2025
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that auto parts imported by Hyundai Transys India Private Limited for use in intelligent manual transmission vehicles were wrongly classified by customs authorities, leading to unsustainable duty demands. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao ruled that the actuator assembly and tube connector assembly used in iMT vehicles cannot be treated as “clutches and parts thereof” under the customs tariff.
Case Title: Accentive (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 23
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40364 and 40365 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled against Accentive (India) Private Limited, a loyalty management company, holding that it cannot retain CENVAT credit on goods and gift vouchers supplied under customer reward programmes because the activity amounts to trading. While the tribunal upheld the tax demands and interest running into crores of rupees, it waived penalties for periods prior to May 14, 2015.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 18
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52841 OF 2018
Case Title : G.R. Infraprojects Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST, Udaipur
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has recently set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claimed by G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. for resurfacing works carried out at an Indian Air Force runway. The tribunal held that the retrospective exemption restored by Parliament squarely applied in the instant case.
In an order dated January 14, 2026, a coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside the orders of the department and the Commissioner (Appeals) that had denied the refund.
Place Of Removal In FOR Sales Cannot Be Presumed As Factory Gate: CESTAT Chennai Reiterates
Case Title: Madras Cements Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 25
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 221 of 2009
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the “place of removal” in FOR (Free on Road or Rail) destination sales cannot be mechanically assumed to be the factory gate and must be determined on the basis of facts and contractual terms. The tribunal set aside and remanded a service tax order denying CENVAT credit on outward transportation services after finding that the tax authorities had confirmed the demand without examining whether the disputed clearances were in fact made on a FOR destination basis.
No Countervailing Duty On Silk Fabrics Imported In 2012–13: CESTAT Chennai
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 26
Case Title: M/s. M.K.P. Fashions v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40319 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) clarified that countervailing duty (CVD) cannot be levied on imported silk fabrics during 2012–2013, when excise duty on such fabrics was fully exempt under the relevant notification. Further that customs proceedings are deemed concluded once duty and interest are paid before a show-cause notice is issued. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao set aside the demand for CVD, confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties imposed on the taxpayer. They disagreed with the revenue that the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit disentitled imported silk fabrics from exemption of CVD.
Amazon Data Hosting On Principal-to-Principal Basis Not Liable To Service Tax: CESAT Delhi
Case Title : Amazon Internet Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST (East)
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55106 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 26
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 January held that data hosting services provided by an Indian entity to an overseas cloud computing service provider on a principal-to-principal basis do not qualify as “intermediary services.” They constitute an export of service, and are therefore not liable to service tax in India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside service tax demands aggregating to about Rs. 80 crores raised against Amazon Internet Services Private Limited (the appellant) for services rendered to Amazon Web Services, Inc., USA.
Case Title : Global Links vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51134 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 19
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has set aside the revocation of a customs broker licence granted to Global Links. The tribunal held that, on the facts of the case, the action could not be sustained, as it was based only on statements that were never admitted as evidence. A coram comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao found that the adjudicating authority relied on statements recorded during the investigation without following the procedure prescribed under the Customs Act as well as Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Cash Calls By Oil India Are Capital Contributions, Not Taxable Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Oil India Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.51690 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL)32
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that 'cash calls' collected by Oil India Limited from non-operator members of an unincorporated joint venture for petroleum exploration do not constitute taxable services. As such, contributions are capital contributions and not consideration for any service.
A Bench of CESTAT, comprising Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), allowed the appeal filed by Oil India Limited, quashing the service tax demand along with interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that activities performed by a co-venturer or operator for the common objective of a joint venture cannot be treated as services rendered to another person for consideration under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Service Tax Demand On Charitable Society Running Educational Activities
Case Title : Rajput Sabha Bhawan vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51289 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 31
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by a charitable society, holding that it cannot be subjected to service tax for educational and community development activities where fees or contributions are collected for charitable purposes, and the society had a bona fide belief it was exempt. A Bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon set aside Rs. 3.2 crores demand against a charitable society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies (the appellant), noting that the society's primary and dominant purpose was charitable, and that the collection of nominal fees for training, accommodation, or cultural programmes did not constitute profiteering or personal gain.
Printing On Government-Supplied Watermarked Paper Does Not Attract Excise Duty: CESAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 28504 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (BAN) 30
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that printing carried out on government-supplied watermarked paper for issuance of Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) does not attract central excise duty, and is classifiable under a nil-rated tariff entry. The Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao allowed the appeal filed by Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a duty demand of Rs. 7.73 lakh, along with interest and penalty, for the period September 2008 to June 2010.
Case Title : Trishaa Rose Garden Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41381 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 35
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that landscaping and garden maintenance services provided under recurring maintenance contracts are classifiable as taxable “management, maintenance or repair services” and are liable to service tax. Dealing with a dispute over the classification of services provided by a plant nursery engaged in maintaining gardens and parks for municipal authorities and corporate entities, the tribunal noted that service tax was leviable on specified taxable services during the relevant period.
Textile Processing Once Classified As Manufacture Can't Be Reclassified As Service: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Sarat Industries Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76611 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 33
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that landscaping and garden maintenance services provided under recurring maintenance contracts are classifiable as taxable “management, maintenance or repair services” and are liable to service tax. Dealing with a dispute over the classification of services provided by a plant nursery engaged in maintaining gardens and parks for municipal authorities and corporate entities, the Tribunal noted that service tax was leviable on specified taxable services during the relevant period.
Local Iron Ore Transport Not Taxable As Cargo Handling Service: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Mata Dadhimati Transport v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.77325 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 34
On 9 January, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reiterated that that service tax cannot be levied on local transportation of iron ore by classifying it as a “Cargo Handling Service” when the activity is essentially one of transportation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by M/s Mata Dadhimati Transport and set aside the service tax demand and the equivalent penalty imposed on it under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise.
Service Tax Paid by Mistake Not Eligible For Suo Motu Adjustment: CESTAT Chennai In TVS Motor Case
Case Title : M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40198 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 39
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled against TVS Motor Company Ltd., holding that service tax paid under a mistaken belief of law cannot be adjusted suo motu against future service tax liability in the manner adopted by it. The ruling was delivered by Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., dismissing the appeal filed by TVS Motor against an order confirming a service tax demand of Rs 41.97 lakh along with applicable interest.
Johnson Lifts Secures ₹1.24 Crore Relief As CESTAT Chennai Upholds Elevator Parts Classification
Case Title : Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40713 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 37
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that lift and elevator parts imported by Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. were correctly classifiable as “parts suitable for use solely or principally with lifts and escalators” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8431, which attracts a lower rate of customs duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Ajit Kumar set aside the department's differential customs duty demand exceeding Rs. 1.24 crore, along with interest and penalties, while upholding the separate classification of door locks.
Raw Aluminium Cannot Be Reclassified As 'Motor Vehicle Parts' Based On End Use Alone: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Hanon Climate Systems India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD Patparganj and Other ICDs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51748 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 38
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently set aside the re-classification of raw aluminium articles imported from Korea and Thailand as auto-parts solely on the basis of end use. On 21 January 2026, a Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya rejected the Department's attempt to classify imported aluminium tubes, pipes, and profiles as 'parts of motor vehicles'. The Tribunal held that merely because the imported goods bore specific part numbers, they could not be considered suitable for use “solely” and “principally” in motor vehicles.
Marine Feed Mixed With Vegetable Protein Attracts Higher Customs Duty: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Grobest Feeds Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42455 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 40
On 22 January, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imports of marine feed mixed with vegetable protein attract higher customs duty as they are classifiable as formulated animal feed and not as simple fish or mollusc meal.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao upheld the reclassification of imported squid-based feed products under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2309 as preparations for animal feeding. The Tribunal held that the presence of substantial vegetable protein fundamentally altered the character of the goods, removing them from the category of "pure marine meal" which is eligible for concessional duty.
CESTAT Allows Service Tax Refund Claims of Nokia Solutions' Sriperumbudur SEZ Unit
Case Title : Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41109 to 41113 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 42
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on services approved for authorised operations in its Special Economic Zone unit. The appeal was decided by Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, who set aside the rejection of refund claims totalling Rs 46.20 lakh while upholding the denial of Rs 4,220 linked to invoices raised on the company's Gurgaon unit.
Tax Refund Must Be Determined By Nature of Service, Not Registration Mistake: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Dubond Infotech Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 12020 of 2015-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 43
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 January, set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed by Dubond Infotech Private Limited, ruling that a clerical error in service tax registration cannot, by itself, defeat a refund claim for exported software development services.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh noted that the company had mistakenly obtained registration under "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval" (OIDAR) services instead of "Information Technology Software Services".
CESTAT Holds MRI Monitors Attract 18% IGST, Sets Aside 28% Levy On Wipro GE Healthcare Imports
Case Title : Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87743 TO 87745 & 87753 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 45
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has set aside customs orders against Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. that had upheld the levy of 28% integrated GST on medical monitors imported for use with MRI systems, holding that the higher tax could not be sustained. A Bench of Technical Member C.J. Mathew and Judicial Member Ajay Sharma found that customs authorities had wrongly rejected Wipro GE's request to amend the bills of entry and had continued to assess the goods at 28% IGST despite the applicable tariff entry and rate notification providing for a lower rate.
Barreled Bitumen Cost Included In Excise Valuation: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Nayara Energy Limited vs. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Rajkot
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 13948 of 2013- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 44
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 January upheld the inclusion of the cost of barrels for bitumen sold from depots. It clarified that barrelled bitumen is different from bulk clearances from a refinery and therefore, the two cannot be treated the same. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh was examining whether the cost of barrels used for packing bitumen by Nayara Energy (formerly Essar Oil) formed part of the assessable value for levy of central excise duty.
GSTAT
No Profiteering Where Builder Absorbs Differential GST Burden: GSTAT
Citation: 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 2
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Raja Housing Limited
Case No.: NAPA/165/PB/2025
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that anti-profiteering proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence showing that GST benefits were withheld from homebuyers, and accordingly closed two separate complaints against real estate developers—Raja Housing and Legacy Global.
Both matters were heard together by a Bench presided over by Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra. In both cases, the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) was the appellant and was represented by the same authorised counsel. The Tribunal also relied on investigations and reports of the Karnataka State Level Screening Committee in both matters, accepting its conclusions while closing the proceedings.
GSTAT President Orders Lenient Scrutiny Of GST Appeals In Initial Filing Phase
Order Number: GSTAT/Pr. Bench/Portal/125/25-26
The President of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi Principal Bench, recently directed all GSTAT registries to adopt a lenient approach in scrutinising GST appeal filings, limiting objections during the initial phase to only substantive defects that affect the merits of the case. The direction was issued by an office order dated 20 January 2026 to address the practical difficulties faced by appellants in filing appeals on the newly operational GSTAT portal.
Developer Not Liable For Profiteering When ITC Benefits Are Fully Passed to Buyers: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DGAP vs. Arkade Developers Private Limited
Case Number : NAPA/131/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 3
On 20 January, the Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Arkade Developers, holding that no contravention of Section 171 arises when Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits are fully passed on to homebuyers. The Tribunal noted that the developer had not only fully passed on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers but also slightly exceeded the statutory requirement.
GSTAT Delhi Says Pan Realtors Not Liable For Profiteering On Flat Sales After Occupancy Certificate
Case Title : DGAP v. PAN Realtors Private Limited
Case Number : NAPA/125/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 4
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has held that, in this case, no issue of profiteering arose in respect of residential units sold after the issuance of an occupancy certificate in Pan Realtors Private Limited's Noida project while closing a buyer's complaint relating to alleged input tax credit benefits under GST. The tribunal, however, closed the complaint after recording the developer's undertaking to refund the computed profiteered amount of over Rs 40 thousand for units sold before the occupancy certificate.
GSTAT Delhi Confirms ₹19.3 Lakh Profiteering Liability on Park Avenue After-Shave Distributor
Case Title : DGAP vs. Shree Sai Kripa Marketing & JK Helene Curtis Ltd (Raymond)
Case Number : NAPA/1/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 5
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 January directed sellers of Park Avenue After-Shave Lotion to deposit Rs. 19,32,446 into the Consumer Welfare Fund, confirming the revised profiteering allegations against them. The ruling comes after a major correction in the profiteering calculations, following the identification of duplication of invoices, which had caused the original financial demand to be overstated.
AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING
Tree Plantation & Maintenance In Non-Forest Areas By Charitable Trust Exempt From GST: Gujarat AAR
Case Name: Sadbhavna Seva Foundation , Sadbhavna Trust
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has granted exemption to tree plantation and maintenance of them by a Trust in non-forest arears like unutilized barren lands, roadsides, amidst lane dividers, on private lands and every other available patch in its reach.
In a recent ruling Mr. Vishal Malani (Member- Central Tax) and Ms. Sushma Vora (Member- State Tax) has held that Entry No. 1 of Notification No. 12/2017 was applicable to tree plantation and maintenance by the Applicant as a charitable activity and was exempt from GST.
GST | ITC Not Available On Construction Of Warehouse Used For Storage Or Leasing: Gujarat AAR
Applicant's Name: PREMLATA RAKESH JAIN
Advance Ruling Number: GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/62
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that input tax credit (ITC) is not admissible on goods and services used for construction of a warehouse or shed, even when such warehouse is used for providing taxable storage and warehousing services or is leased out for business purposes.
The ruling was delivered by the bench of CGST Member Vishal Malani and SGST Member Sushma Vora in the application of a registered GST assessee engaged in providing storage and warehousing services. The assessee proposed to construct a warehouse and sought clarity on eligibility of ITC on construction inputs such as cement, steel, beams, columns and related construction services.
Dermatological Treatments For Psoriasis And Skin Disorders Exempt from GST: Kerala AAR Clarifies
Case Title: Advanced Hair Restoration India Private Limited
Advance Ruling Number: KER/37/2025
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that healthcare services provided for the treatment of psoriasis, dandruff, dermatitis, fungal infections and folliculitis are exempt from GST.
The ruling was delivered by a coram comprising Jomy Jacob, IRS (Additional Commissioner of Central Tax) and Mansur M. I. (Joint Commissioner of State Tax).
GST Leviable On Exam Fees Collected By Devaswom Recruitment Board : Kerala AAR
Applicant's Name: Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board
Advance Ruling Number: KER/29/2025
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that examination fees collected by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board attract GST. It said the Board must register under GST once its annual turnover crosses Rs 20 lakh.
The ruling was delivered by a coram comprising Jomy Jacob, Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, and Mansur M. I., Joint Commissioner of State Tax.
GST Payable On Payment Made By VSSC To Manpower Supplier During Lockdown Despite No Work: Kerala AAR
Case Title: The Kerala State Ex-service League
Advance Ruling Number: KER/31/2025
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is payable on payments made by the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre to a manpower supplier during the COVID-19 lockdown, even though no physical services were rendered.
The ruling came on wages and interim payments received between 23 March 2020 and 31 May 2020, when work was suspended due to the nationwide lockdown.
GST Not Payable On Waste Management Services Provided To Govt-Owned Clean Kerala: AAR
Applicant Name: Tiffot Private Limited
Advance Ruling Number: KER/33/2025
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that solid waste management work carried out for Clean Kerala Company Limited is not taxable under GST, after finding that Clean Kerala is a government-owned company performing municipal functions.
The ruling came on an application filed by Tiffot Private Limited, which handles the collection, transport, processing and disposal of non-recyclable plastic waste for local bodies across Kerala. The work is carried out under an agreement with Clean Kerala Company Limited, a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Kerala government and tasked with statewide solid waste management.
GST Payable On Reimbursed Foreign Patent Attorney Fees For Overseas Patent Filings: West Bengal AAR
Case Title: MedTrainai Technologies
Case Number: WBAAR 12 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has clarified that reimbursement of fees paid to foreign patent attorneys for overseas patent filings constitutes a taxable 'import of legal services' and attracts GST in India.
A coram comprising Shafeeq S, Joint Commissioner (Member- Central Tax) and Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti was examining a dispute arising from patent filings made in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom through foreign attorneys, facilitated by an Indian intellectual property firm.
Delhi AAR Refuses Advance Ruling After GST Intelligence Issues Notice On Same Issues
Applicant's Name: Young Optimistic Transport Solutions Private Limited
Advance Ruling Number: 13/DAAR/2025
The Delhi Bench of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has rejected an advance ruling application filed by a transport company after holding that issues raised in the application had become sub judice following the subsequent issuance of a show cause notice by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. A coram of Bhavan Meena and Asha Chaudhary noted that the applicant did not disclose the issuance of the show cause notice during the advance ruling proceedings after it was issued, which the Authority treated as suppression of a material fact.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 468 of 2025
The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of a Tax Assistant for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹600 for processing an income tax refund, confirming the sentence imposed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The single bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey noted that it is crystal clear that the place of occurrence is the Income Tax Office, Sasaram, where the complainant has alleged that demand was being made and on the point of demand, the occurrence is corroborated by P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 and the recovery was also admitted by other witnesses and all the prosecution-witnesses have supported and corroborated the core points of prosecution-story.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 30th December, 2025, extended the deadline for filing Financial Statements and Annual Returns under the Companies Act, 2013, up to 31st January, 2026.
Initially, the due date for filing financial statements and annual returns for F.Y. 2024-25 was till 31st December, 2025.
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has notified February 01, 2026, as the date for enforcement of the Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025 levying a Health Security se National Security Cess on machines used in manufacture of pan masala and similar items.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court in Ahmedabad on December 29, 2025, convicted and sentenced an Inspector, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhavnagar, to five years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹63 lakh in a disproportionate assets case.
The court also sentenced his wife to one year's imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000 for abetment of the offence.
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) has notified upward revision of GST rate on tobacco and related products together with legislative changes to the GST Rules, enforceable from February 01 2026.
To phase out Compensation Cess on Pan Masala, Tobacco and Allied Products, CBIC has issued a Notification on Wednesday to prescribe a NIL rate of Compensation Cess on Tobacco Products, Pan Masala and related items from February 01 2026.
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has notified 100% Duty-Free Exports under four major Free Trade Agreements with New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.
Indian exports would be partially exempt from various Rates like Basic Customs Duty and fully exempt from Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess as well as Health Cess.
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has notified that Minimum Export Price (MEP) for Natural Honey will be USD 1,400 per metric ton and exports below this price would not be permitted.
In a Notification dated December 31, 2025, DGFT has notified extension by revising the Export Policy condition for Honey falling under tariff heading ITC HS 04090000 till March 31 2026, with immediate effect.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued informative flyers relating to 'Capacity Based Excise Duty' and Health Se National Security Cess (HSNS) payable by manufacturers of Pan Masala, Tobacco from February 01 2026.
With the introduction of the Health & National Security Cess and Additional Excise Duties on Pan Masala, Tobacco and Other Allied Products, the GST Compensation Cess will cease to exist.
CBIC Extends Anti-Dumping Duty On Flexible Slabstock Polyol Imports From Saudi Arabia And UAE
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has extended the levy of anti-dumping duty on imports of Flexible Slabstock Polyol originating in or exported from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates up to June 17, 2026, pending completion of sunset review proceedings.
The subject goods, namely “Flexible Slabstock Polyol of molecular weight 3000–4000,” fall under tariff sub-heading 3907 29 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Hotels Can Now File Specified Premises Opt-In Online On GST Portal: GSTN
The Goods and Services Tax Network has enabled online filing of opt-in declarations for hotel accommodation service providers to declare their properties as “specified premises” on the GST Portal.
This shifts the process from manual filing before jurisdictional officers to an electronic system on the portal. The facility follows Notification No. 05/2025 Central Tax (Rate) and is available from January 1, 2026.
HSNS Cess Rules Notified: Pan Masala Makers to Pay Levy Based on Installed Machines From Feb 1
The Ministry of Finance has notified the Health Security & National Security (HSNS) Cess Rules, 2026, on January 1, setting out the procedure for levying a new cess on machines installed and processes undertaken for the manufacture of pan masala.
The cess will come into force on February 1, 2026, and the collections will be used to fund national security and public health expenditure.
CCPA Fines China Gate ₹50,000 For Service Charge Automatically Levied At Bora Bora Mumbai
Case Title: China Gate Restaurant Private Limited (Bora Bora)
Case Number: CCPA- 2/26/2025-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has recently levied a penalty of Rs 50,000 on China Gate Restaurant Private Limited for automatically adding a service charge to restaurant bills and charging GST on it, calling the practice unfair to consumers. The order relates to the company's “Bora Bora” outlet in Mumbai.
New Tariff Values Set For Imported Gold And Silver
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued a notification on 13 January 2026, updating the tariff values for several imported commodities. These changes, which were made under the powers of the Customs Act, 1962, officially came into effect on 14 January 2026. According to the sources, the tariff value for gold has been set at US $1485 per 10 grams. Silver is now valued at US $2724 per kilogram.
CBIC Revises Tariff Values For Gold, Silver, Edible Oils And Brass Scrap
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has updated tariff values for edible oils, brass scrap, gold, silver and areca nuts. By a notification issued on 15 January 2026, the CBIC notified revised tariff values effective from 16 January 2026, fixing the tariff value of gold at USD 1,483 per 10 grams and silver at USD 2,950 per kilogram.
CBIC Notifies Changes To Duty Drawback Rules To Include Postal Exports
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on January 15 amended the duty drawback rules to make it easier for exporters who send goods by post to claim export benefits. The amendments, notified through the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback (Amendment) Rules, 2026, update the existing 2017 rules to formally include exports made through the postal route and treat them on par with exports covered by shipping bills/bills of export.
CBIC Grants One-Time Relief To Cross Recessed Screws From 2025 Quality Control Order
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has notified a one-time exemption for cross recessed screws from compliance under the Cross Recessed Screws (Quality Control) Order, 2025 (QCO). In an Instruction dated 17 January 2026, CBIC clarified that import consignments of cross recessed screws with inward entry dates between 1 November 2025 and 12 January 2026 would be exempt from QCO compliance.
CBIC Revises Gold Tariff Values, No Change in Edible Oils, Brass Scrap & Areca Nuts
In a notification dated 22 January 2026, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has updated tariff values for gold while keeping tariff values unchanged for edible oils, all types of brass scrap, silver, and areca nuts. The notifications stated that from 23 January 2026 tariff rates are effective at USD 1,567 per 10 g for gold and USD 2,950 per kg for silver.
GSTN Issues Advisory On RSP-Based Valuation For Tobacco Products
Ahead of the rollout of the Retail Sale Price (RSP)–based valuation mechanism from 1 February 2026, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory for taxpayers. The advisory provides guidance on reporting taxable value and tax liability under the RSP-based valuation in e-invoices, e-way bills, GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, and the Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF).
'Godaan' Movie To Be Tax-Free In Chhattisgarh, CM Unveils Trailer
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai on Tuesday announced that Godaan, described as the first feature film centered on the cow, will be made tax-free in the state. The announcement was made while he unveiled the trailer of the film at the Chief Minister's residence office in Raipur. In a statement issued on X, the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister's Office congratulated the makers and cast of Godaan and said the state government remained committed to the protection and promotion of cattle. The Chief Minister said cinema could serve as an effective medium to convey social and cultural messages to a wider audience.
Economic Survey 2025-26: GST 2.0 Delivers Stable Revenue As Transactions Rise
The Economic Survey 2025–26 said GST revenues remained steady following rate rationalisation under the GST 2.0 framework. Gross GST collections during April to December 2025 stood at Rs 17.4 lakh crore, registering a year-on-year growth of 6.7 percent, the Survey noted. It added that GST revenue growth broadly tracked nominal GDP growth during the period.
DGFT Revises Bulk Drug Policy, PEN-G, Amoxycillin Subject To Minimum Import Price Till Jan 2027
In a Notification dated 29 January 2026, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has revised the import policy for certain bulk drugs, including Penicillin G-Potassium (PEN-G) and its salts. According to the notification, specific antibiotics such as PEN-G, Amoxycillin and its salts, and 6-APA have been moved from the 'Free' category to the 'Restricted' category.