SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
Case Number : Diary No. - 24607/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 153
The Supreme Court has held that the appeal filed by Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited against a reassessment order could not be rejected for non-payment of statutory pre-deposit, as the amount already deposited by it in the earlier round of litigation exceeded the 12.5% requirement under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan restored the Federation's VAT appeal before the appellate authority, holding that the statutory requirement stood satisfied.
Supreme Court Rejects Jharkhand's Plea Against SAIL, Upholds ₹30.29 Crore Input Tax Credit Relief
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd
Case Number : Diary No. 18250 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India dismissed State of Jharkhand's special leave petition against Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) in a dispute concerning the transition of input tax credit (ITC) from the pre-GST regime, upholding the Jharkhand High Court's direction on January 30, 2025, to restore Rs. 30.29 crore with interest. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe found no ground to interfere with the high court's order and dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court Stays ₹14.91 Crore Customs Duty Recovery Against HP India, Issues Notice
Case Title : M/S. HP INDIA SALES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NSV)
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4206/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 162
The Supreme Court has stayed recovery pursuant to a Rs.14.91 crore customs demand against HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and issued notice in its appeal against a November 4, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). HP India's appeal challenges the CESTAT Mumbai order, which upheld the classification of its imported “HP Latex printers” as inkjet printing machines instead of inkjet printers, leading to the duty demand along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Ruling In Tata Steel Case, Upholds Entry Tax On H.R. Sheets
Case Title : TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX
Case Number : Diary No. 12365 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to interfere with a ruling of the Allahabad High Court that hot rolled (H.R.) coils and H.R. sheets are not the same commodity, and that tax exemption available to coils cannot be claimed for sheets, thereby restoring entry tax and penalty against Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi found no ground to interfere with the order of the Allahabad high court and dismissed the special leave petition.
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Challenge Against ITC Ltd Over Quicklime Classification
Case Title : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) Versus M/S ITC LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 15126-2026
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Customs Department's challenge against ITC Ltd, upholding a ruling that treated imported “quicklime” as an industrial form of lime rather than a chemically pure compound. The classification turned on whether the product, containing about 92% calcium oxide, could be considered a high-purity chemical. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT Kolkata Bench order dated June 20, 2025, which had held in favour of ITC Ltd. on the issue of classification of imported goods.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Shri Dewan Publications v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1580 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 29
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that adjudication notice ought to be served through physical mode after cancellation of GST registration, as the taxpayer cannot access the portal thereafter. A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held: “Once the registration is cancelled and the registered persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case, are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly natural and practical that any adjudication notice issued after cancellation of registration may be served through physically in terms of the provisions of Section 169 (1) (a) (b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.”
Case Title : M/S Jubair Enterprises v. Union of India and Another
The Allahabad High Court on 17 March held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely because a taxpayer fails to reply to a show cause notice or appear on the date fixed for hearing, and that authorities must record reasons before taking such a drastic step. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran set aside the cancellation of GST registration of Jubair Enterprises and granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Allahabad High Court Upholds Ghaziabad Property Tax Revision Based On Minimum Monthly Rent Rate
Case Title : Rajendra Tyagi and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case Number : PIL No. 1427 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation's revision of property tax based on minimum monthly rent rates (MMRR) under the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. In a PIL challenging the revision of property tax and its enhancement based on MMRR, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held: “we neither find any error in determination of 'MMRR' based upon categorization/classification of the properties nor any illegality in the impugned decision of the respondents to revise/enhance the property taxes based upon 'MMRR'. The exercise undertaken by the respondents is found to be fully in consonance with the statutory provisions requiring no interference by this Court.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
State GST Authorities Cannot Detain Or Confiscate Goods Merely In Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders & Ors v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 541, 1756, 3097, 3225, 3227, 3252, 3254, 3258 and 3354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held on 1 April that State GST authorities cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for goods merely passing through the State in the course of inter-State trade, including on grounds such as valuation discrepancies or mismatch in quantity. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar held that such action exceeds jurisdiction in cases involving inter-State movement under the IGST framework. The Court stated: "Amounts rightfully due to State A or State C are being appropriated, by State B. It is our view that Section 129 or 130 cannot be pressed to vindicate such appropriation."
Case Title : Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 11760/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 1 April set aside a show-cause notice issued to Avanti Feeds Limited, holding that State GST authorities have no jurisdiction to assess or recover Integrated GST (IGST) on imported goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar ruled that such powers vest exclusively with customs authorities under the Customs Act. The Bench observed: “Another aspect of this matter which would also require to be noticed is the language of the proviso to Section 5(1). The said integrated tax would be levied and collected at the point when duties of customs are levied. In a large number of cases, customs duties would be levied and collected at the point of import. An officer under the State GST Act or the Central GST Act, who has been notified as the proper officer, situated in a State, which is not the entry point, of the goods, into India, would not be able to exercise jurisdiction at the point of entry of goods. Such jurisdiction can obviously be exercised only by the customs officers under the Customs Act.”
GST Refund Limitation Must Exclude COVID Period Under Section 54: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MC Wane India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 26816/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 11 March held that while computing the limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of exclusion of time during the COVID-19 period must be granted. Section 54 governs the process for claiming refunds of tax, interest, or any other amount paid under GST. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the rejection of a GST refund application filed by McWane India Private Limited on the ground of limitation and remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration. The Bench directed: “...the order of rejection of refund, dated 16.08.2024, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and without going into the question of limitation.”
GST Proceedings Against A Dissolved Company Lack Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No.6868 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 30
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March held that GST proceedings against a non-existent or dissolved company lack jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside an assessment order passed against Tata Capital Limited, observing: “The proceedings, which had been initiated, against the dissolved company, before the appointed date, would now have to be taken up against the petitioner company and not the dissolved company.”
Case Title : M/s P. Venugopal Naidu v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.: 33250 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 31
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March 2026 held that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) qualifies as a “Governmental Authority” and “Governmental Entity” under GST notifications. However, the Court clarified that contractors can claim the concessional 12% GST rate only if the works they execute meet the conditions specified in the notifications. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who executed contracts for TTD between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2022.
Case Title : Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 4725/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 33
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a GST assessment order against Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the assessing authority failed to properly examine the nature of the transaction and wrongly applied a notification retrospectively. The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the assessment order was unsustainable for failure to examine the nature of supply and accordingly remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Case Title : Sona Enterprises v. The State
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 31510/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 34
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that merely depositing GST in the electronic ledger does not amount to payment to the Government, while setting aside a tax and penalty order against Sona Enterprises. "The provisions of Section 49(1) of the CGST Act read with Rule 87(6) & (7) of the CGST Rules makes it clear that the deposit of cash or the credit of input tax credit into the electronic ledger of the tax payer would not amount to payment of tax. Such payment of tax would occur only when the necessary amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer", the court held.
Bombay HC
Case Title : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 7806/2025 & Batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 176
The Bombay High Court has stayed GST demands on insurers over policies issued to SEZ units, which the department claimed were for employees, prima facie finding the retrospective levy may be without jurisdiction prior to October 1, 2023. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Farhan P. Dubash held, "Prima-facie, we find much substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the designated officer would not have jurisdiction to retrospectively levy tax on the petitioners in respect of the supply in question, namely the sale of insurance policies to the SEZ unit."
Bombay HC Quashes Rs. 1.26 Crore Service Tax Demand For Failure To Comply With Pre-SCN Process
Case Title : M/s. Sheesha Sky Lounge Hospitality and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 177
The Bombay High Court on 12 March, quashed a service tax show cause notice, holding that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause notice (pre-SCN) consultation, as required under CBEC circulars, vitiates the entire proceedings. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that pre-SCN consultation, mandated by circulars issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, is a binding requirement and cannot be bypassed merely because summons were issued to the taxpayer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Before Scheduled Date Of Hearing
Case Title : Rajkala Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 178
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed even before the scheduled date of hearing, holding that it was vitiated by a breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date fixed in the show cause notice. “The impugned order, however, was passed on 30 March 2022 in regard to which, admittedly, no hearing was granted to the petitioner as also no opportunity to file reply to the said notice, was not granted to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petition needs to succeed on the limited ground that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.”, the court observed.
Case Title : NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4815 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 179
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd., holding that such a restriction made on apprehension of fraud cannot continue beyond one year and ceases to operate by law. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe explained that Rule 86A empowers GST authorities to block a taxpayer from using the credit available in its electronic credit ledger if they have reasons to believe that the credit has been wrongly or fraudulently availed.
Case Title : JSW Steel Limited vs. Electricity Inspector & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12477 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 192
The Bombay High Court has held that the exemption from payment of electricity duty granted to Mega Projects under the Package Incentive Scheme, by a 1999 notification issued under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, continues to operate so long as the Eligibility Certificate remains valid, where the notification links the benefit to the eligibility period mentioned in the certificate. “The plain language of the Notification, read with the language of the Addenda III and the language of the Eligibility Certificate, leaves no doubt that the exemption granted under Section 5A of the BEDA,1958 [by issuing the Notification], is directly linked to the Eligibility Certificate. In fact, the language of the Notification clearly suggests that the intention of the State was to directly link the benefit of the exemption under the Act with the Eligibility Certificate granted under the Scheme,” the court observed.
Case Title : V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 202
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders rejecting GST refund claims of V Ships India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellate authority failed to examine the terms of the service agreement before deciding whether the company's services were exports or intermediary services. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said the absence of any findings on the agreement, which was relevant to determining the nature of services, vitiated the appellate orders.
Case Title : Karl Mayer STOLL Textilmaschinenfabrik GmbH Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7882 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 203
The Bombay High Court has quashed show cause notices issued by customs authorities against a German textile machinery manufacturer and its Indian subsidiary, holding that the notices were without jurisdiction and that a foreign exporter cannot be made liable for alleged misdeclaration by Indian importers for a period prior to the 2018 amendment to the Customs Act. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that proceedings initiated against a foreign entity situated outside India were unsustainable in law.
Case Title : Shemaroo Entertainment Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16848 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 218
The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted a clear cleavage of opinion among High Courts on the issue and held that an authoritative determination is necessary. The court noted that while some High Courts have upheld such consolidated notices, others have held them to be impermissible, leading to divergent judicial views.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Cancellation Order For Lack Of Reasons
Case Title : Tex Fab India Vs Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1118 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 217
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order cancelling the GST registration of Tex Fab India after finding that the impugned order did not contain any reasons. The Court also recorded that the attachment of the petitioner's bank account had lapsed by operation of law under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. A bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe observed that the issue was no longer res integra and that recording reasons while cancelling GST registration is a settled legal requirement.
Case Title : Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.3704 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 222
The Bombay High Court has held that while an amalgamation order is chargeable to stamp duty as a “conveyance”, stamp authorities cannot levy duty on such an order by treating accounting entries such as goodwill, share premium, or profit and loss figures as consideration in the absence of any real issuance of shares or payment of money. Holding that amounts reflected in accounts can be considered for stamp duty only if they are clearly linked to actual issuance of shares or real payment of consideration, a bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed: “If there is money paid, that can be counted. But if there is neither, then the authority cannot create a value by picking up accounting entries and calling them consideration. That would be going beyond the law. It would make the provision wider than what the Legislature has written. Therefore, unless the amounts shown in the accounts can clearly be linked to actual issuance of shares or actual payment of consideration, they cannot be used for levying stamp duty.”
Input Tax Credit Blocking Cannot Continue Beyond One Year From Imposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Elitecon International Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 224
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that a restriction on utilization of Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot continue beyond one year from the date of its imposition. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, examining Rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, observed, "Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered view that there appears to be much substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, that the blocking of ITC in the ECL of the Petitioner beyond the period of one year is against the mandate of Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules. This is further clear from the very language of the aforesaid Rule, which provides that the restriction as envisaged, of blocking of the ITC will cease to have effect after expiry of the period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction. Rule 86A (3) thus provides for an automatic unblocking of credit post the expiry of one year."
Case Title : Infinx Services Private Limited Vs The Union of India through, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.11996 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 227
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST refund rejection against Infinx Services Private Limited, finding that the tax department shut the company out of the process by deciding the case without giving it a hearing, even after it asked for time citing heavy rains in Mumbai. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the order had been passed without affording a personal hearing despite a specific request to reschedule the hearing on account of heavy rains in the city.
Case Title : Covestro India Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No.11540 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 233
The Bombay High Court recently observed that Commissioner of Customs cannot issue public notices in a manner that dilutes the benefits under free trade agreements or overrides statutory provisions and CBIC circulars, while setting aside an order denying preferential duty to Covestro India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arises from a public notice issued in March 2024 by the Commissioner of Customs at Nhava Sheva, which prescribed additional documentation requirements in cases involving third-party invoicing, including submission of the exporter's invoice and value breakup for verification of country-of-origin claims.
GST Refund Cannot Be Rejected Without Considering Documents Already On Record: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Interactive Brokers Software Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 236
The Bombay High Court on 16 April set aside an order rejecting a GST refund claim after finding that the authorities failed to properly consider documents submitted by the taxpayer, including the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). A Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that when relevant documents are already placed on record, the refund claim must be examined fairly and through a reasoned order. It observed: “No prejudice would be caused to the Department if the issue is re-examined and all the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim are duly considered.”
Bombay High Court Quashes Municipal Cess Assessment Orders Against HPCL Over 10-Year Delay
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 637 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 239
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed municipal cess assessment orders passed by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that completing proceedings more than ten years after issuing show cause notices was unreasonable and liable to be set aside. A Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted that the issue raised was already covered by its earlier ruling and that the corporation was bound by it.
Bombay High Court Allows GST Refund For Pre-July 5, 2022 Claims Under Revised Inverted Duty Formula
Case Title : CHEC-TPL Line 4 Joint Venture v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 240
The Bombay High Court has granted a GST refund to a Joint Venture, which is executing Mumbai Metro works, holding that the revised refund formula for inverted tax structure applies even to claims filed before July 5, 2022, when the amended formula came into force. “The Petitioner will be entitled to the refund as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act being the difference in the GST rates, due to inverted rate structure.”, the court held. Quashing rejection orders passed by GST authorities, a Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe directed the authorities to grant refunds on the petitioner's applications.
Bombay High Court Quashes GST Demand On Mumbai University, Says Affiliation Not 'Supply' Of Service
Case Title : University of Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 248
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a GST demand of Rs 16.90 crore on the University of Mumbai, holding that affiliation fees collected by the university are part of its statutory duties and not taxable. “Thus, having examined Section 7 and its purport in regard to its applicability in the context of the petitioner University receiving affiliation fee, in our opinion, there ought not to be any ambiguity that the collection of affiliation fees by the petitioner University in the discharge of its statutory functions, as noted hereinabove, can at all amount to a “supply” as defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act. As a consequence thereto, once such activity itself is not 'supply' and/or it is not business within the meaning and purview of sub-section 1(a) of Section 7, there is no question of the charging provision i.e. Section 9 which provides for levy and collection being applicable,” the Court held.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata v. Shri Anil Kumar Soni & Anr.
Case Number : CUSTA 30 of 2025 & CUSTA 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 79
The Calcutta High Court on 31 March restored the adjudicating authority's confiscation of 1,999.90 grams of gold, holding that clandestine transport and high scientific purity of bullion establish a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under the Customs Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar allowed the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata's appeals, reinstated the confiscation and penalties, and set aside the Tribunal's order that had granted relief to the respondents, Anil Kumar Soni, owner of A.R.P. Ornaments, and Anil Kumar Gaur, the carrier.
Calcutta High Court Denies Summary Judgment In GST Compliance Dispute, Says Trial Mandatory
Case Title : M/S. S. G. KAREL AND SONS JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S MADAN LAL AGARWALLA JEWELLERS AND OTHERS
Case Number : IA No. GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/669/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 82
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April held that objections relating to GST compliance and supply of goods raise triable issues that require a full trial and refused to grant summary judgment in a commercial dispute. Justice Aniruddha Roy was hearing an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success. He observed: “Once factual enquiry is required to be made on the basis of the case and counter-case made by the parties to a suit, it inevitably gives rise to triable issues for which a properly constituted trial is required.”
Chhattisgarh HC
Summary Processing Cannot Decide Debatable ESI, EPF Claims: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : TAXC No. 152 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 8
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 16 April held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke summary processing powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to disallow claims involving debatable legal issues, including employee contributions towards ESI and EPF, as such adjustments fall outside the limited scope of prima facie scrutiny. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed the appeal filed by Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd against the orders passed by the AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office Of The GST Officer Ward 71
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2339/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 345
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order of Rs 26.7 crore against a company engaged in the business of trading and export of branded mobile phones, holding that it was denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing by the tax authorities. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed that the timeline granted to the petitioner to respond to the Department's queries and to appear for a personal hearing was inadequate and violative of principles of natural justice.
Case Title : Vinod J Sharma v. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : WP(c) 2129/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 352
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Union of India in a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, observing that there is prima facie merit in the petitioner's arguments on legislative competence and arbitrariness of the levy. The Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition filed by Vinod J. Sharma, wherein the validity of the cess imposed on pan masala has been questioned.
Case Title : Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1993/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 375
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to entertain a challenge to a corrigendum allegedly expanding the scope of a show cause notice by including an additional financial year, holding that such issues require factual examination and are not suited for adjudication under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by Manpar Icon Technologies challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent corrigendum and the order-in-original confirming a tax demand of over Rs 42 lakh.
Case Title : Jaina Marketing and Associates v. Union of India & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1225/2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 383
The Delhi High Court has recently held that importers are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty in cases where prolonged delay in reassessment is attributable to the Department. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed, "For the delay in Department's passing of the re-assessment orders, the Petitioners cannot be blamed or expected to unduly suffer. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that in the said four writ petitions, the interest would liable to be paid to the Petitioners."
ARN Cannot Be Equated With Valid GST Registration Certificate: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt Ltd v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12042 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 386
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld Oil and Natural Gas Corporation's (ONGC) decision to reject a bid for failure to submit a valid Goods and Services Tax registration certificate at the time of bidding, holding that an Application Reference Number (ARN) cannot substitute a GST certificate in tender processes. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt. Ltd., said: “An ARN is only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, whereas a GSTIN is granted only upon due verification and approval under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, an ARN cannot, in law, be equated with a valid registration certificate.”
Case Title : Kanika Exports v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12512/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 393
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the determination of the “relevant date” for computing limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) depends on the nature of the refund claimed, and that the 2019 amendment to the provision cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat vested rights of taxpayers. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with petitions challenging rejection of refund claims for unutilised input tax credit (ITC) on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : Sandeep Kumar v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4502/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 399
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed writ petitions challenging adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, holding that non-communication of an order extending time for adjudication does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul relied on Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs where it was held that although as a matter of prudence the Customs Department ought to intimate the grant of extension to the concerned parties, non-communication thereof would not, by itself, constitute a fatal error, since Section 28 of the Customs Act does not stipulate communication of such extension as a mandatory pre-condition to its validity.
Case Title : Akee International v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5063/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 400
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to direct a third re-test of goods under Customs proceedings, holding that such a request cannot be insisted upon at the mere instance of a party and that the decision lies within the discretion of the adjudicating authority, particularly where two test reports are already on record. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter seeking the quashing of a show cause notice and a direction for re-testing of seized shawls allegedly containing prohibited material.
Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Unserved SCN
Case Title : NHD Motors v. GNCTD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17505/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 401
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the show cause notice (SCN) was not effectively served on the assessee, holding that a reminder issued in respect of such an SCN cannot be treated as a valid communication. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus set aside a GST demand order after finding that the SCN had not been properly communicated to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Order Despite Delay In Filing Writ, Cites Denial Of Hearing
Case Title : Sun International Limited v. The Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 402
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was not given an opportunity of hearing, even though the writ petition was filed belatedly A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul set aside a GST demand order passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while imposing costs and granting conditional relief to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Quashes State GST Order Citing Overlapping Proceedings With CGST Authority
Case Title : Maa Jagdambe Engineering Works v. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3635/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 410
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the State GST Authority against an engineering firm, holding that in the facts of the case, where proceedings had already been initiated earlier by the Central GST authority and involved overlapping entities, the State authority ought not to have proceeded further having regard to the mandate of Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a challenge to an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the State GST officer based on a demand-cum-show cause notice dated July 2, 2025.
Case Title : Radha Rani Metal v. Principal Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1180/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 411
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the GST Department against an earlier ruling restricting retrospective cancellation of a firm's GST registration. The court observed that in the facts of the case, the Department, having chosen to invite a decision on merits instead of withdrawing the defective show cause notice and seeking liberty to issue a fresh one, could not subsequently seek to reopen the issue in review jurisdiction.
Case Title : Ramada Engineering Industry v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1036/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 422
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the bar on parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies only where proceedings by State and Central GST authorities relate to the same subject matter and not where they pertain to different financial years or distinct infractions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order confirming tax demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018–2019.
Case Title : Nand Kishor Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5444/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 423
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a gold chain under the Customs Act, 1962, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass an available statutory remedy of appeal. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed the petition filed against an order confiscating a 100-gram gold chain from the Petitioner on his return to India from Bangkok.
Case Title : Holoflex Ltd & Anr v. UoI
Case Number : LPA 314/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 430
The Delhi High Court has recently held that export incentives under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme cannot be denied solely on the ground that the exporter failed to furnish a Bill of Export (BOE), where there is otherwise sufficient evidence of supply of goods and receipt of payment. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while dismissing a review petition filed by the Union of India challenging an earlier judgment granting EPCG benefits to Holoflex Ltd.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Customs SCNs On AIFTA Benefits For Copper Imports
Case Title : Rajasthan Metals v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11126/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 431
The Delhi High Court has dismissed as premature petitions challenging show cause notices denying duty benefits under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on copper imports from Vietnam for allegedly failing the 35% value addition requirement. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the petitions were not maintainable at this stage, noting that the challenge was to show cause notices which initiate adjudicatory proceedings and do not conclusively determine rights.
Delhi High Court Declines GST Refund Challenge In Writ, Says Appeal Lies Before GSTAT
Case Title : Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19358/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 432
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging rejection of GST refund claims, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited assailing an appellate order that had upheld rejection of its refund claims aggregating over Rs. 4 crore under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : M/s Apurba Enterprise & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/1216/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 9
The Gauhati High Court has directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where a taxpayer is willing to furnish pending returns and clear dues, observing that cancellation entails “serious civil consequences.” Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that if the taxpayer complies with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders. The case arose from a writ petition filed by Apurba Enterprise challenging cancellation of its GST registration dated December 7, 2019 under Section 29 of the CGST/AGST Act, along with withholding of contractual dues.
Case Title : Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/956/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 10
The Gauhati High Court has held that where GST registration is cancelled for non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and clears tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may consider dropping the cancellation proceedings in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences, and therefore, if the taxpayer complies with the statutory requirements, the authorities should consider restoration of registration in accordance with law.
Gujarat HC
Cross-State ITC Transfer Cannot Be Denied on Amalgamation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee companies are located in different States in a case of amalgamation. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held, "The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the ground that the transferee and the transferor company are located in different states. We are of the opinion that the respondent department cannot incorporate something in a statutory form ITC-02 on GST Portal which is absent in the statutory provisions. The remark which is mentioned on the Form GST ITC-02 does not find place in the statute. Neither the statute permits nor debars the transfer of ITC after the scheme of amalgamation has been approved by the NCLT. Such an action of restricting the transfer of ITC on the on-line GST portal is de hors the intention of the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO.889 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 58
The Gujarat High Court on 15 April 2026 held that the appellate forum under the Customs Act, 1962 must be determined by the actual rank and statutory authority exercised by the adjudicating officer, and not by any incorrect or clerical mention in the order. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Department's Tax Appeal and upheld the CESTAT's order, holding that the appeal was correctly filed before the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delay In GST Appeal Condonable On Showing Sufficient Cause: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Manjulaben Vinod Patel v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17603 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 59
The Gujarat High Court on 17 April, held that a short delay in filing an appeal under the GST regime can be condoned if the appellant demonstrates “sufficient cause”, and that appellate authorities must apply their mind to the reasons instead of mechanically rejecting appeals on limitation. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Manjulaben Vinod Patel and quashed the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred.
Taxpayer Must Be Heard Even If They Opt Out Of Personal Hearing Under GST Law: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. State Tax Officer (4) and Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 6209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 60
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a GST demand against a registered taxpayer, holding that authorities must grant a personal hearing before passing an adverse order and cannot bypass this requirement even if the taxpayer opts out in a form. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the statutory mandate governing adjudication has to be strictly followed. The court said, “the option of no personal hearing taken by the petitioner, cannot override the effect of mandate given by the statutory provision in Section 75(4) of the GST Act.”
Jharkhand HC
Jharkhand High Court Refuses Tata Steel's Writ Against GST Demand, Says Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2485 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)6
The Jharkhand High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Tata Steel Limited challenging a GST adjudication order involving alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit, holding that the company had not made out a case to bypass the statutory appellate remedy. “We are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for bypassing the alternate statutory remedy of appeal.”, the court held. A Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar underscored that the High Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum in tax matters.
Case Title : Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Limited VS The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department (now State Tax Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2396 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR) 7
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on the State tax department for sitting over a VAT refund of Rs.6.71 crore for years, holding that excuses such as vacant posts and officers being on election duty are “neither legal nor satisfactory.” A Division Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, to ensure that the refund is paid with 6% annual interest by May 5, 2026, warning that any delay beyond the deadline would result in the Commissioner personally paying the additional interest from salary.
Karnataka HC
Pigmy Agents Are Employees, Commission Paid Them Not Subject To GST: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.100806 OF 2024 (T - RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 47
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April, held that banks engage pigmy (deposit collection) agents as employees, not independent service providers. Therefore, the commission paid to them does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST). A Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank's writ petition and quashed all show cause notices issued by GST authorities under the reverse charge mechanism. He held: “The show cause notices issued by the respondent proceed on an erroneous premise, making an attempt to describe the pigmy agents as business facilitators. The foundation of the show cause notice, in the light of the aforesaid narration, is itself infirm…. Pigmy agents employed by the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, can never be treated as business facilitators for them to be coming under the GST and the services rendered by these pigmy agents are in the course of their employment with the Bank as pigmy agents, which is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III quoted supra.”
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 110 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 52
The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory, and cannot be relaxed by tax authorities. However, in cases of genuine hardship, delay in filing refund claims may be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, subject to safeguards protecting the Revenue. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind made the ruling. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides provisions for claiming refunds of excess GST paid by a registered person.
Kerala HC
Case Title : Muhammed Ali Haji P.P. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 20625, 20672, 20745 & 20753 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 63
The Kerala High Court on 3 March quashed a customs confiscation order involving 25 kilograms of gold, holding that denying the petitioners an effective opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, sitting as a Single-Judge Bench, allowed writ petitions challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Customs authority, which had confiscated the gold and imposed penalties. He observed: “The denial of opportunity caused prejudice to the petitioners” and the proceedings “cannot be treated as the proper compliance of the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title : Kerala Gramin Bank v. Saifudheen M and Ors
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2628 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 68
The Kerala High Court has held that a hypothecation agreement executed to secure a loan attracts stamp duty as a general agreement under Article 5(g) of the Kerala Stamp Act and not as a pledge or mortgage, which attracts higher duty. Clarifying the position, the court said Article 6 of the Act applies only to pledges. “Article 6 of the Act will get attracted only if the instrument in question is a 'pledge'. On a conspectus reading of the agreement of hypothecation, it is evident that the possession of the vehicle is still with the borrower. If that be so, it passes one's comprehension as to how the deed of hypothecation will qualify as an instrument of pledge".
Conditional Land Tax Acceptance Unsustainable Without Civil Court Adjudication: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C)NO.20484 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 72
The Kerala High Court on 5 March held that the State cannot impose conditions while accepting land tax that create a cloud over title, as such disputes require adjudication by a competent civil court and cannot be decided through administrative endorsements. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S set aside the condition in Order G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 6 June 2019 and declined to direct unconditional acceptance of land tax, while permitting the petitioner to approach the competent authority with proper applications for consideration under the applicable statutory framework.
Madhya Pradesh HC
MP High Court Sets Aside Commercial Tax On Diamond Cement For Sale Of Food In Factory Canteen
Case Title : Diamond Cement v. Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 27748 of 2003
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 27
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has, applying settled law, set aside the levy of commercial tax on subsidised food supplied in a factory canteen run as a statutory welfare measure in a 1995–96 assessment involving Diamond Cement, while upholding the rest of the demand. The court, however, upheld tax liability on scrap sales, coal purchases, and denial of set-off on certain items. The bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, partly allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Diamond Cement challenging the assessment for the year 1995–96 under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
Case Title : Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 2510 of 2026 and 2532 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a GST demand of Rs. 7.01 crore could not be sustained as it was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Indore, who lacked jurisdiction in the absence of a GST Council-backed authorisation. A bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi set aside the order passed against a firm, Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar. “The impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed, being an order by an incompetent authority.”
Madras HC
Case Title : M/s.Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 95
The Madras High Court has held that where the Department appropriates amounts during the pendency of an appeal against a Excise duty demand despite a subsisting stay order, such amounts must be treated as paid under protest, and a refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. The bench stated that "If the revenue is permitted to adopt such novel ways to adjust the amounts by getting over an order of stay and thereby indirectly recovering the money, it cannot be construed as a duty payable as on the date of such appropriation."
Madras High Court Holds Cut Tobacco Processed With Jaggery Water Is Unmanufactured Tobacco
Case Title : Arumugam v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.A.(MD) No.1988 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 109
The Madras High Court has recently held that cut tobacco processed by curing with jaggery water and sold in cut form would be classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco, setting aside advance rulings that had described it as manufactured chewing tobacco and subjected it to a higher compensation cess under GST. The court set aside the rulings of the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, as well as a single judge's order that had upheld the description of the product as manufactured chewing tobacco.
Madras High Court Quashes GST Demand On GAIL, Says No Recovery If Tax Already Paid
Case Title : Gail (India) Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.13152 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 110
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a show cause notice issued to GAIL (India) Ltd. under Section 76 CGST Act, holding that recovery proceedings cannot be sustained where the tax collected has already been remitted to the Government, even if paid through another GST registration of the same entity. The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that, “Section 76 of the CGST Act is clear and simple. Any person collecting any money as tax cannot retain it for himself, even if the tax is not chargeable. Ultimately, it is the person who wrongfully bore the incidence of tax who is entitled to a refund, and the person who collects has no say. Thus, neither is the tax amount wrongly collected, nor is it wrongfully retained.”
Orissa HC
Case Title : Rajendra Narayan Mohanty v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.2271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 13
The Orissa High Court at Cuttack held that tax authorities cannot retain amounts deposited twice under a mistaken belief, as such retention would violate Article 265 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside an order rejecting the refund claim filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty, and allowed him to seek a fresh refund.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Valid GST Notice Must Disclose Details And Basis of Liability: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner
Case Number : CWP-4495-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 19
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 April held that a GST show cause notice lacking specific allegations, supporting material, and proper reasoning is legally unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Alka Sarin set aside a show cause notice issued to Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Before raising a demand, the purpose of putting an assessee to notice, is to make the assessee aware of the department's intent to enable the assessee to effectively respond. A vague notice does not fulfil such object. Serving of a non-specific notice is nothing but an empty formality which does not fulfil the afore object and is even otherwise, violative of the principles of natural justice.”
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Defreezes Accounts As GST SCN Only Uploaded On Portal, Never Served
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5272/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has directed de-freezing of the bank accounts of business entities and their proprietors from Sawai Madhopur after noting their submission that the SCN concerning their GST liability was only uploaded on the portal without being served through any other prescribed mode. Granting interim relief, a division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal said it would be just and proper to allow operation of the accounts, subject to the deposit of 10% of the total recovery amount, if not already deposited.
Case Title : M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Energy Department
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1151/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has held that electricity duty exemption on captive consumption of solar power promised under the Solar Policy, 2019 cannot be withdrawn retrospectively so as to divest accrued rights, ruling that UltraTech Cement Ltd. and other petitioners are entitled to the benefit for projects commissioned prior to the amendment. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal delivered the judgment.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 6668 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 9
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd., recording the State's statement that seized documents whose originals are missing will not be relied upon in adjudication, while permitting proceedings to continue on the basis of available material. A Bench of Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed that once the State clarified that such missing documents would not be relied upon, the grievance of the petitioner stood addressed and adjudication could proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title : Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE)
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos.9166 and 9354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 13
The Telangana High Court on 8 April, held that a single, composite GST liability order against a company and its Managing Director cannot be used to deny them independent appellate remedies. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin allowed writ petitions filed by Sugna Metal Limited and its Managing Director, and directed tax authorities to issue separate orders. The judges held: “...,the Managing Director (petitioner in W.P.No.9166 of 2026), after obtaining a temporary registration, is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal and take all such grounds on facts and in law as are available to him…”
Telangana High Court Refuses Challenge To Arrest Of Fino Payments Bank CEO In ₹840 Crore GST Case
Case Title : Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. No.6657 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 18
The Telangana High Court has upheld the arrest of Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta in an alleged ₹840 crore GST evasion case, holding that the 24-hour safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not violated and observing that his contention of being in custody prior to arrest did “not merit acceptance.” Dismissing his writ petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that Gupta was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
Revenue Cannot Demand Interest On Delayed Duties Yet Deny It On Refund: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Virchow Laboratories Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise
Case Number : CEA.No. 195 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 21
The Telangana High Court recently held that the Revenue is bound to compensate a taxpayer for amounts wrongfully collected and retained as interest on alleged central excise duty liability arising from a customs notification, even where such amounts were recovered under an amnesty scheme. The court said, “the Revenue cannot act in contradicting ways, i.e., on one hand demanding interest from the assessee for the delay in payment of duties and on other hand refusing to pay interest on the amount that was wrongly collected. This would be unfair and unjust, on the part of the Department, since the delay was caused entirely by the Revenue retaining the funds and they are bound to compensate the assessee.”
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Nimai Kar v. The State of Tripura
Case Number : WP(C) No.167 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 3
The High Court of Tripura has directed the State authorities to reimburse Rs. 2.21 crore along with 12% interest to a government contractor, holding that taxes paid under the GST regime must be refunded where the contract expressly provides for such reimbursement. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sri Nimai Kar, a Class-I government contractor, who had undertaken a road construction project pursuant to a tender issued on 20.03.2017 by the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Tripura.
Uttarakhand HC
Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Same Day As Reply, Calls Hearing An “Eyewash”
Case Title : M/s Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner & another
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 286 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 6
Observing that passing an adjudication order on the very same day as filing of reply without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, the High Court of Uttarakhand set aside GST demand and penalty proceedings against Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, stated that the mere recording of a hearing on the date of filing a reply does not satisfy the requirement of a fair opportunity.
Uttarakhand High Court Strikes Down Water Tax On Hydropower, Calls It Tax On Electricity Generation
Case Title : T.H.D.C. India Ltd through its CMD v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
Case Number : SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 7
The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down a state law that required hydropower companies to pay a tax for using river water to generate electricity, holding that the levy was effectively a tax on electricity generation, which the State cannot impose. Deciding on a reference arising from an earlier split verdict, Justice Alok Kumar Verma opined: “It has been found in the earlier analysis that the Act imposes a tax on the generation of electricity. The State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on the generation of electricity. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the conclusion of brother Ravindra Maithani, J. that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
CESTAT
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax, CENVAT Demand Against Advertising Company
Case Title : Radiant Advertising & Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75351 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 143
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside a demand of Rs. 6,25,706 against an advertising company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not invocable and that no excess CENVAT credit was availed. The order was passed by a coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, which held that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax and further found no merit in the allegation of excess CENVAT credit.
Boronated Calcium Nitrate Not Eligible For Concessional Duty As 'Calcium Nitrate': CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10247 of 2024- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 138
On 1 April, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Boronated Calcium Nitrate” is a distinct product from “Calcium Nitrate” and is therefore not eligible for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh dismissed three appeals filed by Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd., holding: “Boronated Calcium Nitrate imported by the appellant is a different product than Calcium Nitrate and therefore, the product is not eligible to concessional rate of duty under Entry No.225(I)(b) of Notification No.50/2017-Cus.”
Service Tax Leviable Even On Pre-2008 Loading Of Goods For Transportation: Hyderabad CESTAT
Case Title : M/s Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 25817 of 2013 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT(HYD) 139
On 1 April, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that loading of goods onto trucks for delivery to customers constitutes “cargo handling service” (CHS) and is liable to Service Tax even prior to the 2008 amendment. The Bench, comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad, was hearing an appeal filed by Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. against an Order-in-Appeal dated 19 November 2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad-IV, which had confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 6,02,741/-.
CESTAT Chennai Rules Transportation Charges Not Taxable In C&F Services Before May 2015
Case Title : Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41891 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 144
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 April, held that reimbursable transportation charges paid to a clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent do not form part of the taxable value of services for the period prior to the 2015 amendment to the Finance Act. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Mr. Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd., clarifying that only the consideration received for the actual service rendered is taxable.
Case Title : M/s. Ajab Singh & Co. v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54194 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 140
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that Coronation Park, being a historical site of national importance, is eligible for exemption from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya heard cross appeals filed by Ajab Singh & Co. and the Revenue against a common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak.
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Customs Duty On Imported Natural Rubber, Dismisses MRF's Appeal
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40936 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that the levy of Additional Duty of Customs equivalent to Rubber Cess on imported natural rubber is legally sustainable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by MRF Limited, noting that the issue stands covered against the taxpayer by coordinate Bench and Larger Bench decisions.
Job Worker Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Capital Goods Despite Invoice Name Mismatch: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41350, 41351 of 2017 & 41699 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 146
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a job worker can avail CENVAT credit on capital goods even if invoices are not issued in its name, provided the goods are received, accounted for, and used in the manufacturing process. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held: “In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the allegation of the Revenue that ACPL had availed ineligible CENVAT credit is clearly unsustainable and is also not supported by any statutory provision and hence, the demand in the impugned orders cannot sustain.”
Case Title : M/s Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40283 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHE) 147
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a claim for exemption under a customs notification cannot succeed when the goods are specifically excluded and prescribed conditions are not met. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. against the Department. The Tribunal stated: “We find that there is no dispute as regards the withdrawal of the benefit vide Note 2 to Notification No.125 supra and hence, clearly, the Appellant's claim for the benefit was not in order.”
Case Title : M/s. General Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 531 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 141
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently set aside a demand exceeding Rs. 1.52 crore, holding that the valuation of goods manufactured through job work and sold to job workers cannot be determined on arbitrary assumptions. The tribunal ruled that where goods are cleared on a principal-to-principal basis and price is the sole consideration under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, the transaction value must be accepted. The ruling was delivered by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi in the case of General Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the export of coffee and spices.
Case Title : Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi North
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52586 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 142
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a service tax demand of Rs 64,61,530 against a firm supplying manpower to Government hospitals. The tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the reverse charge mechanism under a 2012 notification, as the service recipients were not “business entities registered as a body corporate.” A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order confirming the demand along with interest and penalty.
Recovery Proceedings Can Be Initiated Only Against Persons Liable To Pay Excise Duty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Prashant Rajnikant Mehta & Anr. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85764 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 158
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 April held that proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be initiated against persons who are not chargeable with duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the demand confirmed against individuals who were not proprietors of the exporting firm, holding: “...proceedings under Section 11A ibid can only be initiated against such person and not on the present appellants… since the said appellants were not liable for payment of central excise duty… 11A proceedings cannot be invoked… from the present appellants.”
Mere Sale Of Advertising Space Without Creative Input Not Taxable Under Finance Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Digital AD Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42020 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 143
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that mere sale of advertising space, without any element of designing, conceptualising or preparing advertisements, does not amount to taxable “advertising agency service” under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax applies only where services of making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement are rendered. As per CBEC's clarification dated 16.08.1999, these should involve activities such as designing, visualising, or conceptualising advertisements. Mere sale of space does not attract tax as 'Advertising Agency Service'. Accordingly, display of a company name simpliciter, as in this case, does not amount to advertising agency service, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Service Tax On Services Received From Abroad Classified As IPR
Case Title : M/s MLR Motors Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27348 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 144
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that services received from abroad classified as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) services attract service tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotish and Judicial Member Angad Prasad partially allowed an appeal by MLR Motors Ltd, allowing the taxpayer to discharge such liability through CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1 July 2012.
Production Work For Broadcaster Liable To Service Tax Even With Copyright Transfer: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Sathya Jyothi Films v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.42361 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that service tax is leviable on the production of a television serial on behalf of a broadcaster under “programme producer's service”, even where the agreement provides for perpetual assignment of copyright. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. dismissed the appeal filed by Sathya Jyothi Films and upheld the service tax demand with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Penalty Against Biofuels Company As Service Tax Paid Before SCN
Case Title : Universal Biofuels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26117 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 168
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad has recently set aside penalties imposed on Universal Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., holding that the tax department should not have issued a show cause notice after the company had already paid the full service tax with interest. A coram of Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed, “In view of the factual matrix of this appeal, we find that in this case, in the first place, the SCN itself should not have been issued as the appellant had already paid the entire service tax along with applicable interest. Further, we find that the issue of payment of service tax under the category of MRSAS itself was under litigation and differing judgments were passed. There is nothing on record to substantiate that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant for non-payment of service tax with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we find that the appellants were eligible under section 73(3) and the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on section 73(4) is not correct."
CESTAT Hyderabad Remands Iron Ore Export Valuation Dispute After AO Ignored Contract Addendum
Case Title : M/s Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - CUS
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26820 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 153
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that the assessing authority must consider contractual modifications and supporting documents while finalizing export valuation and refund claims. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, observing that it had failed to appreciate modifications to the original contract, including an addendum reflecting changes in Fe content and price.
One Department Wing Cannot Contradict Another On Excise Duty Assessment: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41399 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 159
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that Central Excise authorities cannot question or reclassify goods already assessed by Customs at the time of import. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar set aside the demand of CENVAT credit on imported software by Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal observed: “When payment of CVD & SAD was accepted and the Customs classification is not disputed by the Customs authorities… it is very strange and uncomfortable situation when another wing of the same Department calls in question the classification of the same goods…”
Total Turnover Determines Eligibility For Tax Exemption, Not Just Taxable Services: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52404 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 169
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 April, held that to claim exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the “turnover” of a business entity includes its entire income and not just taxable services. Therefore, if the total turnover exceeds the prescribed limit, a refund of service tax cannot be granted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the order rejecting its refund claim of service tax paid under the reverse charge mechanism on legal consultancy services.
Case Title : M/s. Yokohama India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51369 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 170
On 7 April, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi allowed Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd. to claim a cash refund of CENVAT credit paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for the pre-GST period. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta clarified that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act protects such vested rights and the refund cannot be denied simply because the tax was paid after GST or due to alleged suppression without evidence.
CESTAT Delhi Says Govt Reimbursement Grant For Daawat Foods Plant Not Taxable As Service
Case Title : Daawat Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central : Respondent Excise, Bhopal-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51632 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 171
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has granted relief to Daawat Foods Ltd., holding that grant-in-aid received by it from the Government as reimbursement of expenditure is not liable to service tax as it does not constitute consideration for any service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya ruled that the financial assistance did not give rise to any service provider–recipient relationship.
Importer Not Liable For Post-Sale RSP Revision By Dealers: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51905 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 154
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 April, held that an importer cannot incur liability for differential customs duty based on a post-sale upward revision of Retail Sale Price (RSP) by independent dealers, once the parties complete the sale on a principal-to-principal basis. A Bench comprising President Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside the demand raised against Richemont India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the importer loses control over the goods after such sale and cannot bear liability for subsequent price changes.
Tobacco Pouches Up To 10g Not Liable To MRP-Based Excise Duty: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 1871 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 146
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that small tobacco pouches of 4 grams and 9 grams are not liable to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing a batch of appeals filed by Shiva Tobacco Co. and others. If Section 4A (MRP-based valuation) does not apply, valuation falls back to Section 4 (transaction value). The bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar delivered the ruling.
Case Title : NCC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 274 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 172
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has ruled that mobilisation advances received prior to the introduction of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, are not liable to service tax at the stage of receipt, granting partial relief to NCC Ltd. The Hyderabad Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad And Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed that the statutory framework prior to 1 March 2011 did not mandate payment of service tax on advances before actual provision of service, and emphasized that liability arose only in accordance with the law prevailing during the relevant period.
Case Title : M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30602 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 173
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that allegations of export undervaluation and demand of differential duty cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent and admissible evidence establishing receipt of additional consideration, setting aside the order against M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed, “While there is no denial that charges of under valuation can be established on the basis of preponderance of probability, but it cannot be based on presumptions and assumptions. Suspicion, how so ever, grave cannot replace proof.”
Case Title : Nishant Organic Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10505 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 174
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that freight and insurance charges are includable in the assessable value for excise duty where goods are delivered at the buyer's premises and not at the factory gate, thereby upholding the demand of duty, interest, and penalty. Referring to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the tribunal observed, "Above provisions clearly indicate that when excisable goods are not sold at the factory gate but the sale actually happens at any other place (which in this case is the customer's premises), the cost of transportation shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging excise duty."
Only Input Credit Used For Both Taxable and Exempt Activities Must Be Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40499 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 175
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has held that while reversing CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only common credit used for both taxable and exempted activities needs to be considered and not credit used exclusively for dutiable goods. The tribunal set aside the demands, interest, and penalties against Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.
CESTAT Chennai Allows ₹84 Lakh CENVAT Credit Claim By Komatsu India For Factory Expansion
Case Title : Komatsu India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41094 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 176
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to claim tax credit worth Rs 84.08 lakh on services used to expand its factory. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the company, which manufactures dump trucks, had added a new facility next to its existing plant to produce hydraulic excavators.
Case Title : CONCOR v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Imports
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51767 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 177
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the case of CONCOR, a custodian cannot be fastened with customs duty liability under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during its custody or tampering of seals of imported goods. A bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the demand of Rs. 51.80 lakh and penalties imposed on Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR), holding that in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during custody or tampering of seals, duty liability cannot be imposed on the custodian.
Case Title : Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40161 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 178
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Jindal Aluminium Ltd., holding that exemption under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) cannot be denied merely due to the absence of country-of-origin markings on imported scrap goods. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Jindal Aluminium Ltd. and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had denied the benefit of Notification No. 046/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs-Kandla v. Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 11604 of 2016- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 182
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has upheld the reclassification of imported synthetic fabrics, holding that laboratory test results clearly disproved the importer's declaration and rejecting a retesting plea raised after 11 years, while remanding valuation and SEZ exemption issues for fresh adjudication. A bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the Revenue's appeal against relief granted to Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd., finding that the CRCL test report conclusively established the composition of the goods.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Penalty On Time Avenue, Finds No Link To Importer's RSP Misdeclaration
Case Title : Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51914 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 183
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 April set aside a penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the penalty under Section 112(b) could not be sustained in the absence of proof that the appellant knew the goods were liable to confiscation.
Case Title : K.A. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 185
CITATION : Customs Appeal No. 50622 of 2024
On 10 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that where imported goods are cleared under the IGCR procedure, the Department cannot allege excess imports without explaining how customs officers permitted such clearance. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 31.40 lakh against K.A. Enterprises. They observed: “In the absence of any recording as to which of the two Assistant Commissioners committed the irregularity, the demand of duty on the appellant cannot be confirmed.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Nikon ₹7.32 Crore Refund, Holds Claim Pre-Exemption Decision Is Not Maintainable
Case Title : Nikon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52552 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 186
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 6 April, held that a refund claim filed before final adjudication of the underlying exemption dispute is not maintainable, even where duty has been paid under protest. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Nikon India Private Limited and upheld rejection of its refund claim.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Refund Of Service Tax On Cancelled Project, Rejects Limitation Bar
Case Title : Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax/Excise, Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51789 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 184
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 April held that authorities cannot deny refund of service tax paid on advances received for construction services on the ground of limitation, where the project is subsequently cancelled and the amounts are returned to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter, holding that the time limit under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act does not apply in cases where service tax is paid on advances for construction services, the project is later cancelled, and the amounts are refunded.
Works Contract Road Construction Taxable, Refund Barred Under Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sandeep Builders v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise-Jodhpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51487 Of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 382
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 16 April held that a service tax refund cannot be granted where the taxpayer has passed on the tax burden to the recipient, as such claims are barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the denial of refund to Sandeep Builders, noting that the activities undertaken by the company were correctly taxed as “Works Contract Services” under Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Grants Relief To Bharat Hotels, Sets Aside Service Tax On Forfeited Booking Advances
Case Title : Bharat Hotels Limited v. Commissioner of CGST-New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54762 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 187
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside a service tax demand against Bharat Hotels Limited on amounts retained upon cancellation of hotel room bookings. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal and held that advance amounts forfeited as “room retention charges” cannot be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects AAI's ₹30.31 Lakh Excess Service Tax Refund Claim Over Delay
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51270 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 188
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Airports Authority of India (AAI). The challenge was to an order that had upheld rejection of its refund claim of ₹30.31 lakh, which AAI said was excess service tax paid on lease rent charged to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who heard the matter, held that merely claiming payment under mistake does not by itself entitle a party to a refund. If a claim is filed late and without a convincing explanation, it cannot be entertained. The tribunal also stressed that such claims are governed by the statutory framework, including limitations.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs GOQii Technologies Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85064 of 2025 2
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 189
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has ruled that GOQii activity trackers and fitness bands are not just simple pedometers, but devices with a range of features including the ability to communicate data. The tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against GOQii Technologies Pvt. Ltd The order was passed by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban while deciding a dispute over how these imported devices should be classified for customs duty purposes. The case covered imports made between November 20, 2017 and November 15, 2019.
Case Title : Sonova Hearing India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs – Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87752 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 190
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside a customs duty demand of about Rs 1.19 crore against Sonova Hearing India Pvt. Ltd. The order also wipes out the interest liability, an equal penalty, and a redemption fine of Rs 1 crore that had been imposed in the classification dispute over imported charging cases used with hearing aids.
Case Title : Sumitra Devi Kejriwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75252 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 191
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an IGST demand raised on an importer functioning under Tea Spares (India) over an alleged short payment of tax on imports of tea plucking and pruning machines.It held that the department could not apply a higher rate under a residual entry without first disputing the classification opted for by the taxpayer. The tribunal observed that “the adjudicating authority has appropriately questioned the department's stance of not having questioned the description of the impugned goods their classification during the course of the post-clearance scrutiny and have merely issued the show cause notice stating therein that the subject imports did not attract IGST under Entry Sl.No.196 of Schedule-II of IGST Notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.”
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹3.63 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand Against India Cements Over Imported Coal
Case Title : The India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41125 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 192
In a relief to cement major The India Cements Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a Rs.3.63 crore CENVAT credit demand along with interest and penalty, holding that credit cannot be denied merely because Countervailing Duty (CVD) was paid at concessional rates on imported steam coal. A Chennai bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the company's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated December 14, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli, which had confirmed a CENVAT credit demand of Rs. 3.63 crore along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 2.42 crore for the period September 2012 to June 2017.
Case Title : National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST-Jaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 52372 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 191
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed the appeal filed by National Engineering Industries Ltd., setting aside the denial of CENVAT credit on insurance services, forex hedging consultancy, and employee training and travel-related services, holding that these were used in relation to its manufacturing business. The case was decided by Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who found that the services in question were connected, directly or indirectly, with the appellant's manufacturing activity and qualified as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in the facts of the case.
CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Service Tax On Emmvee Photovoltaics' Bonus Payments To Foreign Shareholders
Case Title : M/s. Emmvee Photovoltaics Power (P) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 193
On 21 April, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax on bonus payments made by Emmvee Photovoltaics Power Pvt. Ltd. to foreign shareholders and partly allowed the company's appeal, granting limited relief on penalties imposed under the Order-in-Original. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that bonus payments linked to performance conditions constitute consideration for marketing and business promotion services and attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties On Ranbaxy In Ex-Works Valuation Dispute
Case Title : M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50589 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 194
On 24 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs duty demand, invocation of the extended limitation period, and penalties imposed on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.) and customs broker Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that although the importer incorrectly declared ex-works price as FOB value in Bills of Entry, the error arose from oversight and no material established any intention to evade customs duty.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows Release Of Seized Drone Parts, Says Separate Consignments Not Complete Drones
Case Title : IZI VS Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva-V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87853 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 196
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has ordered the provisional release of seized drones and drone components, holding that Customs cannot deny release by treating separate consignments of parts as complete drones without establishing a one-to-one correlation and that the parts were capable of being reassembled into complete units. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Department failed to show that the imported parts corresponded to complete drones capable of being assembled.
No Service Tax On Alumni Fee Collected By University In Absence of Service: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissiner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20077 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 195
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that no service tax can be levied on alumni fee collected by a university in the absence of any corresponding service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand exceeding Rs. 97 lakh raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangaluru.
Delay Beyond 90 Days Not Condonable Under Customs Act: CESTAT Mumbai Reiterates
Case Title : Parekh Cranes and Machinery Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86233 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(198)
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 April, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act beyond the original 60-day limitation period and the additional condonable 30-day period. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Parekh Cranes and Machinery and its partner, and upheld the confiscation and penalty orders as barred by limitation.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Toyota Boshoku's Appeal, Holds Seat Components As 'Parts Of Seats'
Case Title : M/s Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(DEL) 200
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 April held that goods specifically classifiable as parts of seats cannot be reclassified under a general entry for motor vehicle parts, and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Toyota Boshoku Device India Pvt. Ltd.). A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj and held that the goods are correctly classifiable as “parts of seats” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9401 90 00 and not under CTI 8708 99 00.
IIM Bangalore Campus Recruitment Fees Taxable As Manpower Recruitment Services: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1538 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 201
On 27 April 2026, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that recruitment fees collected by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) from corporates during campus placements are liable to service tax under the category of “manpower recruitment or supply agency services”, while participation fees are not taxable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal, confirming service tax only on recruitment fees for the normal period along with interest, granting cum-tax benefit, and setting aside the levy on participation fees and penalties.
Case Title : Gamco International v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Export-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87660 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 203
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has dismissed the appeal filed by Gamco International in a customs classification dispute involving alleged misdeclaration of imported marble slabs. It upheld confiscation, redemption fines, penalties, and denial of exemption after finding that the goods were actually limestone. The tribunal held that, in this case, there was clear misdeclaration of both the nature and quantity of the imported goods. It said the customs action was justified on that basis.
Gold Chains In Running Lengths Are Jewellery, Not Semi-Manufactured Gold: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Ram Aabhoshan v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 21961 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 203
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bengaluru has recently held that gold chains imported in running lengths are to be treated as articles of jewellery and not as semi-manufactured gold, ruling that minor processes like cutting and attaching hooks do not alter their essential character. A coram of Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao said the goods had already taken the form of finished jewellery.
CESTAT Chennai Orders Refund Of Excise Duty On Revised Price Not Accepted By Buyer
Case Title : Woory Automotive India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41551 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 204
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that excise duty paid on a higher price claimed through supplementary invoices cannot be sustained where the buyer never accepted that price. “The contemporaneous letter dated 13.07.2015 issued by the buyer clearly establishes that the supplementary invoice was not accepted, the amount was not accounted in the books and no CENVAT credit was availed. Thus, the revised value never crystallized into a transaction value within the meaning of Section 4. Consequently, the duty paid on such notional and unrealized value cannot be sustained,” the court observed.
State VAT Exemption Cannot Override SAD Liability On Imports: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s.Enterprise International Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41779 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 205
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April dismissed an appeal filed by Enterprise International Ltd., holding that exemption from VAT in Uttar Pradesh cannot be used to avoid payment of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported silk fabrics. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao examined whether SAD liability can be avoided on the basis of a state-level VAT exemption and whether a demand can be raised when assessment is claimed to be provisional.
Procedure Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice: CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Appeal Rejection Over Delay
Case Title : HARSHAD KESHAV PARAB VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-MUMBAI CENTRAL
Case Number : SERVICE TAXAPPEAL NO.85334OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 197
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai has set aside an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had rejected a taxpayer's appeal solely because no application for condonation of delay was filed along with it, even though the delay was only 23 days. The tribunal held that procedural requirements cannot be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma observed, "It is a settled principle that procedural requirements, including limitation, should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice, particularly when the delay is marginal and satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the delay is only of 23 days, and the appellant has expressed willingness to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay if an opportunity is granted."
Case Title : Mysore Race Club Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23205 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 206
Service tax demand on services provided by a club to its own members under “Club or Association Services” cannot be sustained, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held, while ruling that Mysore Race Club Ltd. remains liable for service tax on restaurant services, event-related income, and sponsorship activities. The bench of Judicial Member D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. to hold that the demand under “Club or Association Services” was not sustainable.
Case Title : G-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. VS Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50651 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 207
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi on Wednesday held that Bluetooth earphones remain earphones for customs classification and do not become data transmission devices merely because they use wireless connectivity. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the primary function of such devices is sound output, which makes them earphones. “Bluetooth Wireless Earphones are, objectively and physically, earphones. They produce sound in or near the ears of the user. The Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity is a technology by which audio signal reaches the device. It does not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purposes".
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Importer Entitled To DEPB Benefit Despite Subsequent Cancellation Of Scrips
Case Title : Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. (Presently known as M/s Saguna Foods Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86694 OF 20162
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)199
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. cannot be denied duty exemption on imports made using DEPB scrips that were valid at the time of use, even if those scrips were cancelled later. DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scrips are transferable licences issued to exporters that can be used to pay customs duty on imports. “The scrips were valid when they were utilized by the appellant. Subsequent cancellation would have no impact.”
Case Title : Deep Traders v. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra and Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 10762 of 2020 and 10995 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 211
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Ahmedabad has set aside confiscation and penalties imposed on Deep Traders, Gujarat, holding that its import of technical-grade urea through a State Trading Enterprise on a high sea sales basis did not violate the Foreign Trade Policy. In a high-seas sales transaction, the State Trading Enterprise imports the goods and sells them to an Indian buyer while the shipment is still at sea, with the buyer completing customs clearance. A coram of Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh said the issue was “no more res-integra” and followed earlier tribunal decisions to allow the appeals filed by Deep Traders.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Biodegradable Carry Bags Eligible For 5% GST Subject To Notification Conditions: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re Pradeep Verma
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/22
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in February, held that concessional GST at 5% applies to biodegradable carry bags only if the goods satisfy the condition of being biodegradable under the relevant notification. It also held that it cannot determine whether a product meets scientific standards of biodegradability or compostability. The Authority Bench comprising Utkarsha and Dr. Akhedan Charan disposed of an application filed by Pradeep Verma concerning classification and GST applicability on carry bags made from materials such as PBAT and PLA.
Concessional GST On Irrigation Rubber Rings Conditional On Hard Rubber Use: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re M/s Arti Pitaliya
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/21
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that rubber rings used in sprinkler or drip irrigation systems will qualify for concessional Goods and Services Tax (GST) only if they are made of hard rubber and used exclusively for irrigation purposes, and not otherwise. The Bench comprising Members Utkarsha and Dr Akhedan Charan was hearing an application filed by Arti Pitaliya, a Jaipur-based manufacturer of rubber components used in irrigation systems.
Corpus Fund By RWAs Taxable As Advance For Future Services, GST Payable On Receipt: Karnataka AAR
Case Title : In Re Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association
Case Number : KAR.ADRG/08/2026
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that corpus or sinking funds collected by residential associations constitute consideration for future supply of services and are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the time of receipt, treating such collections as advances under the GST law. A Bench comprising Members Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and Sivakumar S Itagi, while hearing an application filed by Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association, ruled that GST liability arises at the stage of receipt of corpus funds.
GSTAT
GSTAT New Delhi Confirms No Profiteering By IJM Raintree Park, Dismisses Homebuyer's Objections
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. IJM Raintree Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : NAPA/128/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 16
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 1 April upheld the closure of anti-profiteering proceedings, finding that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to the developer after the introduction of GST. A Bench of Judicial Member Mayank Kumar Jain rejected objections raised by a homebuyer against the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 8 January 2025 concerning alleged non-passing of GST input tax credit benefits in a housing project.
GSTAT New Delhi Holds No ITC Benefit Arises For Homebuyers In Fully Post-GST Construction
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Sobha Limited
Case Number : NAPA/98/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 17
On 2 April, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that no input tax credit (ITC) benefit was required to be passed on to homebuyers where the entire construction and transaction took place after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain upheld the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 21 August 2025 in DG Anti Profiteering v. Sobha Limited. He observed: “no benefit of ITC would be available to the Complainants as the price of the flat had been fixed after taking into account the incremental ITC that would have become available to the Respondent subsequent to introduction of GST, if any,”
GSTAT New Delhi Finds No Profiteering By Samridhi Realty After Excess ITC Benefit Passed To Buyers
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/150/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 18
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 2 April, held that there is no contravention of anti-profiteering provisions where a developer has already passed on input tax credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers in excess of the amount required under Section 171 of the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta disposed of proceedings against Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report.
GSTAT Transfers Marvel Vinyls Appeal To Ghaziabad Bench, Orders Seamless Digital Handover
Case Title : M/s Marvel Vinyls Limited v. Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Meerut & Ors.
Case Number : APL/9/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 20
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 April 2026 laid down that registry systems must ensure seamless tracking of appeals transferred between Benches by maintaining spreadsheets and e-registers, with periodic reviews to prevent cases from being “lost in transit”. A Bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta directed transfer of the appeal filed by Marvel Vinyls Limited to the Ghaziabad State GSTAT Bench after holding that it did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Bench.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has advised taxpayers to approach adjudicating authorities for issuance of a rectification order in cases where they are unable to file appeals on the GST portal due to a “NIL” demand reflected in adjudication orders. In an advisory dated April 3, 2026, GSTN noted that taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing appeals in such cases despite underlying disputes on tax liability.