SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV v. M/s Xerox India Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 5939–5941 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 257
The Supreme Court has held that Xerox India's practice of grouping, plugging and pinning imported photocopier modules according to customers' requirements, commonly known as "kitting", did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As no manufacturing activity was found, the company was not liable to pay central excise duty. The court reiterated that a process amounts to manufacture only if it results in a new product with a distinct name, character, and use.
Order Authorising Arrest Under GST Law Must Be Communicated Before Arrest: Supreme Court
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANI
Case Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that an order authorising arrest under the GST law must be communicated to the person concerned before the authorities proceed with the arrest. “To ensure that anyone who is facing the apprehension of arrest is not left in a position of irreparable damage, we have said that Section 69 [CGST Act] order has to be communicated,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held.
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE AND ANR. vs JAI KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Case Number : DIARY No. 41408/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on the GST Department's plea challenging an Allahabad High Court order that set aside the remand of a person arrested under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had found that the grounds of arrest were not shown to have been served before his production before the Magistrate. The High Court also found that the arrest memo did not mention any annexure containing the grounds of arrest. The court relied on the January 13, 2025 CBIC instruction requiring that the grounds of arrest be furnished in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI VS M/S DIEBOLD SYSTEMS (P) LTD.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4708-4711 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 273
The Supreme Court has held that the Revenue cannot artificially split an indivisible turnkey contract and levy service tax on a notional portion of the total consideration towards installation and commissioning. Such segregation was not permitted under the law during the relevant period, from July 2003 to April 2006. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation while upholding a CESTAT order that had set aside service tax demands against Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. The top court dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai.
Case Title : Audi Automobiles & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 10504-10506 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 274
The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that the Excise Department cannot invoke the extended limitation period when the relevant facts were already known to it. The court set aside an excise duty demand after finding that the Department knew the manufacturer had cleared the chassis at 110% of its manufacturing cost. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, however, upheld the Department's position on valuation. It ruled that the additional 10% included in the valuation of the chassis under Rule 8 had to be included while determining the assessable value of the completed vehicle.
Supreme Court Directs No Coercive Steps Against ITC In ₹11.59-Crore CST Demand
Case Title : ITC LTD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (LTU AND INT)
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.28364-28369/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against ITC Ltd in its challenge to the Telangana High Court judgment that upheld a ₹11.59 crore commercial tax demand on its inter State stock transfers. The High Court on July 22, 2026 dismissed ITC's six writ petitions. It held that the transactions involving movement of goods from Andhra Pradesh to other States were, in substance inter State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore liable to tax.
Supreme Court Upholds TVS Motor's Referral Charges As Business Auxiliary Service, Sets Aside Penalty
Case Title : M/s TVS Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 279
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that TVS Motor Company Limited was liable to pay service tax on referral charges it received from banks and an insurance company for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies, treating the charges as Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the penalty imposed on the company under Section 78 of the Finance Act, after finding that it had paid the entire service tax liability before the authorities issued the show-cause notice.
Supreme Court Dismisses GST Review Against Bharti Airtel And Others Over ITC On Telecom Towers
Case Title : COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEAL 1, DELHI ETC. Versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED ETC.
Case Number : DIARY NO(S). 10915/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 280
The Supreme Court on 19 August dismissed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department's review petition against Bharti Airtel Ltd, Indus Towers Ltd and Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, upholding the earlier dismissal of the Department's challenge to the Delhi High Court ruling on input tax credit (ITC) for telecom towers. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 8 August 2025, by which it had dismissed the Department's special leave petition against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 12 December 2024.
Supreme Court Says Extended GST Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Mechanically, Quashes G.R. Infra Notice
Case Title : M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 281
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be invoked merely by mechanically using expressions such as “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression of facts” in a show cause notice. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by G.R. Infra Projects Limited, Ratlam, observing that the show cause notice itself must specify the allegations and circumstances which led the assessing officer to infer fraud, concealment or suppression of facts.
Supreme Court Holds Port Trust Liable For Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods After Custodian Approval
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4477 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 283
The Supreme Court on 25 August upheld the validity of a notification approving the Mumbai Port Trust as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to approve a person or entity as custodian of imported goods pending their clearance. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan held that the Commissioner of Customs was justified in approving the Trust as a custodian, and set aside the Bombay High Court's finding that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the notification.
Supreme Court Sets Aside GST Notice Against Tata Steel, Says 'Suppression' Must Have Factual Basis
Case Title : M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16859 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 284
The Supreme Court has set aside a GST show cause notice issued to Tata Steel Limited and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 26 December 2025, holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), merely by using the words “suppression of facts” without setting out the foundational facts supporting the allegation. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that where the Department seeks to invoke the extended limitation period on the grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the show cause notice must itself disclose the facts forming the basis for such an allegation.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Seeks Centre's Response On GST Appellate Tribunal Vacancies In Uttar Pradesh
Case Title : S.S. Pharma v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2982 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 59
The Allahabad High Court has sought an affidavit from the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India detailing the efforts being made to fill vacancies in the GST Appellate Tribunal benches in Uttar Pradesh. In a petition filed by S.S. Pharma, the issue of GST appellate tribunals not sitting was brought before the High Court. Justice Piyush Agrawal had directed the state counsels to seek instructions on the appointments, sittings, and disposal of cases by the Appellate Tribunal.
CESTAT Must Issue Fresh Notice If Bench Does Not Sit On Fixed Hearing Date: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Sampark Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 64
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where no bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal sits on the date fixed for hearing so that no judicial order comes to be passed fixing the next date, the Tribunal must issue a fresh notice to the party intimating the next date and place of hearing. It held that an appeal decided ex parte on such an unnotified date is decided without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Nageen Traders and Molding India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Abdul Rahim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Dept. Govt. Lko. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 989 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 66
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a taxpayer who appeared before the tax officer and contested a show cause notice on merits and raised the objection of want of jurisdiction only after the penalty order went against him is hit by the doctrine of election and ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “We are conscious of the settled legal position that a question of jurisdiction can be raised before a Constitutional Court at any stage. However, the writ jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised by this Court in a judicious manner.”
GST Authority Finding In Assessment Proceedings May Affect Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Javed Akhtar v. Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15340 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 67
The Allahabad High Court on 11 August held that where assessment proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 end in a finding that a taxpayer has not violated the law, such finding may have a bearing on criminal prosecution arising from the same allegations, even though the two proceedings are independent. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan made the observation while granting bail to Javed Akhtar, who was accused of fraudulently availing input tax credit, noting that no proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act had been initiated against him.
Bombay HC
Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mahapuja Ltd. Through Its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah v. The Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central Through Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 15871 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 435
The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more particularly where statute clearly provides for orders that are appealable. In such situations, it thus becomes incumbent upon the Court to separate the 'grain from the chaff' and judiciously exercise discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, in an exceptional case, under compelling circumstances."
Stamp Duty Cannot Be Levied On Final Conveyance If Documents Form One Transaction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 13655 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 468
The Bombay High Court on 20 August held that where several agreements and a subsequent conveyance form part of one continuous property transaction, stamp authorities cannot treat the final conveyance as a fresh transaction and levy stamp duty again merely because the documents bear different names. Justice Amit Borkar quashed the demand of Rs. 2.60 crore raised against Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited towards alleged deficit stamp duty, along with the consequential penalty and other charges.
Future Revenue Share Can Be Consideration For Stamp Duty On Development Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Star Developers Through Partners v. State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Revenue & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11127 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 476
The Bombay High Court on 24 August held that a landowner's agreed share in future sale proceeds can be treated as consideration for determining stamp duty on a development agreement, even if the exact amount is not known when the agreement is executed. Justice Amit Borkar dismissed Star Developers' petition challenging the demand for deficit stamp duty, holding that the 42% revenue share agreed to be paid to the landowner could be considered while determining the market value of the transaction under Section 2(na) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
Case Title : M/s Sahyog Homes Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 6437 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 477
On Friday, 28 August, a Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 must be completed within six years, or whether it is sufficient for the proceedings to be initiated within that period. Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Sahyog Homes Ltd. and another, challenging an order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority directing them to pay Rs. 2.31 crore towards deficit stamp duty.
Case Title : IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 38052 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 478
On 28 August, the Bombay High Court held that a taxpayer cannot be denied refund of the GST pre-deposit corresponding to a tax demand that has already been set aside, merely because it intends to challenge the remaining demand before the GST Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed IBM India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition challenging the rejection of its claim for refund of Rs. 3.14 crore.
Different Financial Years Cannot Be Clubbed In One Section 73 Show Cause Notice: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Mehadia & Sons C & F Division v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-II & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 484
The Bombay High Court on 28 August reiterated that demands for different financial years cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). A Division Bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the statutory scheme treats each financial year as a separate tax period for assessment and recovery, with separate due dates and limitation periods. It therefore held that different financial years cannot be consolidated into a single proceeding under Section 73.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta HC Rejects ₹27.74 Cr CENVAT Demand, Says Revenue Cannot Choose Assessee's Compliance Method
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate Kolkata IV v. M/s Ganges Valley Foods Private Limited
Case Number : CEXA 6 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 195
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed the Revenue's appeals against a biscuit manufacturer in a Rs 27.74 crore CENVAT credit dispute involving the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted biscuits. It held that an assessee has the right to choose between the methods of compliance available under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar held that the Revenue cannot switch an assessee to a more punitive method merely because it disputes the calculation made under the method chosen by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Reassessment Against Chirania Projects, Orders Personal Hearing
Case Title : Chirania Projects Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 23325 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 202
The Calcutta High Court on 18 August upheld reassessment proceedings initiated against Chirania Projects Private Limited for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, while directing the Assessing Officer to provide the company an opportunity of personal hearing during the reassessment. Justice Smita Das De passed the order while hearing the company's writ petition challenging the 30 June 2025 order under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Riverdale World School v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : WPC No. 2390 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 21
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 31 July held that a municipal authority cannot reject a property tax exemption claim merely because a school did not submit its Section 12AA registration certificate under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which grants tax exemption to charitable institutions) along with its initial self assessment or representation. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu disposed of the writ petition filed by Riverdale World School, which challenged a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs. 30,808 towards property tax for the financial year 2020 to 2021.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Dismisses 19-Year-Old Sales Tax Reference On Video Cassettes For Non-Prosecution
Case Title : Casette Shoppe v. Commissioner Of Sales Tax Delhi
Case Number : ST.REF. 1/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 775
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 19-year-old sales tax reference concerning the tax classification of video cassettes for non-prosecution. A division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain had earlier observed that with the advancement of technology, the issue may have become purely academic. On Friday, the court dismissed the reference after observing that no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner-Casette Shoppe for several hearings.
Case Title : Ministry Of Railways v. The Assessing Azuthoirity & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13676/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 776
The Delhi High Court has recently reserved judgment in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Ministry of Railways challenging sales tax demands in relation to transactions involving the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC), nearly 20 years after the petitions were instituted in 2006. The division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain reserved judgment and asked the parties to file synopses, not exceeding five pages each, within three working days. The writ petitions were filed in 2006, challenging assessment orders dated March 30, 2006 that raised sales tax demands.
Case Title : Armour Security India Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10738/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 783
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST Appellate Authority is competent to decide what constitutes a "reasonable period" for issuance of a show cause notice under Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus refused to entertain a writ petition in this regard, by bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. The petition was filed by a security services company, challenging a show cause notice dated September 30, 2025 and the consequential demand order dated March 30, 2026.
Passenger Carrying Undeclared Gold Has No Entitlement to Seek Its Re-Export: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Oguljeren Derchiyeva v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6948/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that passengers who cross the Green Channel without declaring dutiable or prohibited goods cannot later seek re-export of the confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. For context, Section 125 empowers the adjudicating authority to grant an option to redeem confiscated goods upon payment of a redemption fine. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the provision is not an “entitlement” to re-export the goods.
Delhi High Court To Examine CAAR's Power To Void Customs Advance Rulings
Case Title : Le Mei Plastic Manufacturing Private Limited v. The Customs Authority For Advance Rulings, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : CUSAA 80/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 787
The Delhi High Court has admitted an appeal that will examine when the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) can declare an advance ruling void from the outset on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation of material facts. The appeal arises from the CAAR's exercise of its powers under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962, to declare the appellant's August 6, 2025, advance ruling void ab initio. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by a plastic manufacturing company challenging an order of the CAAR declaring its earlier advance ruling dated August 6, 2025 void ab initio under Section 28K of the Customs Act on the ground that it had allegedly been obtained by misrepresentation of material facts.
Delhi High Court Allows Exporter To Approach GST Authorities For Interest On Refund
Case Title : Recyclib Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6519/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 788
The Delhi High Court has permitted an exporter to approach the GST authorities for payment of interest on an allegedly delayed refund under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a petition filed by a lithium-ion battery recycler, which is engaged in the export of unwrought cobalt powder used in scrap batteries. Petitioner submitted that it had applied on January 22, 2022, for refund of ₹31.44 lakh towards tax paid on export of goods. The refund application was rejected on April 22, 2024. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the Petitioner's appeal on January 6, 2026 and set aside the refund rejection order. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a fresh application on March 27, 2026, pursuant to which the refund amount was released.
Plea In Delhi High Court Challenges GST Demand Notices Based On Uncorrected Return
Case Title : Smec International Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Ct Gst, Delhi East & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6176/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 789
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging GST demand notices allegedly issued on the basis of an uncorrected return, despite the petitioner's claim that revised returns had been considered during audit proceedings. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by an engineering design consultant company. Senior Advocate Puneet Agrawal for the Petitioner-company submitted that while filing its GST return for the financial year 2014–15, a clerical error had occurred, which could not be rectified within the prescribed 90-day period. It was submitted that the Petitioner subsequently sought correction of the error, and during audit proceedings, the revised returns were taken into consideration.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Cancellation Notice Lacking Proper Officer Details Office Address
Case Title : Prashant Shanker v. Superintendent, Range-125, CGST Delhi West
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 794
The Delhi High Court on 5 August held that a show cause notice issued for cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration must clearly mention the office address and the details of the proper officer before whom the taxpayer is required to appear. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside the cancellation of Prashant Shanker's GST registration and the rejection of his application seeking revocation, holding that the orders were passed without granting him an effective opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Goel Metal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10996/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 793
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the provisional release of goods seized during search proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that a petitioner questioning the validity of a statutory provision must establish that it infringes a constitutional mandate. Petitioner had contended that the expression "on a provisional basis" in Section 67(6) should not apply where the taxpayer has already discharged the tax, interest, and penalty under Section 74A(9). It also challenged Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and sought quashing of a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalty proceedings.
Interest On Duty Drawback Payable From LEO Date Not Adjudication Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi v. M/s Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 79/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 795
The Delhi High Court on 3 August held that interest on delayed duty drawback becomes payable one month after issuance of the Let Export Order (LEO), and the pendency of adjudication proceedings cannot postpone the statutory liability under Section 75A of the Customs Act (which provides for payment of interest on delayed drawback). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., holding that the exporter was entitled to interest on the duty drawback amount of Rs. 49.75 lakh from 13 April 2003 until the date of actual payment.
Case Title : Holitech India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8397/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 797
The Delhi High Court on 4 August held that the period during which the Interim Board for Settlement remained unable to function due to lack of quorum must be excluded while calculating the statutory limitation period for deciding customs settlement applications. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain set aside the communications issued by the Interim Board treating the Petitioner's settlement proceedings as having abated under Section 127C(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that a litigant cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy of settlement due to the adjudicatory authority's institutional incapacity.
Case Title : Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3874/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 798
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand on the ground that it was based on inadmissible third-party electronic evidence, holding that questions relating to the admissibility, authenticity, and evidentiary value of electronic records are matters to be examined by the statutory appellate authority and not in writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming demands exceeding ₹1.5 crore along with interest and penalty.
Delhi High Court Accepts Customs Apology For Failing To Video-Record Statement In Gold Seizure Case
Case Title : Pulkit Nanda v. Vishal Pal Singh, Commissioner Of Customs & Ors
Case Number : CONT.CAS(C) 239/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 801
The Delhi High Court recently accepted the Customs Department's unconditional apology for failing to video-record the statement of a man whose 403-gram gold chain was seized at Delhi airport. Justice Mini Pushkarna, however, cautioned that the Department was expected to be aware of and scrupulously comply with judicial directions. The bench observed that the Customs Department, having a robust law department, could not justify the lapse by claiming that the concerned officer was unaware of the court's directions.
Case Title : Zubair Enterprises v. Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18468/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 802
The Delhi High Court has directed all banks and financial institutions to de-freeze bank accounts provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), upon the expiry of one year from the date of attachment, unless a fresh attachment order is issued in accordance with law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain also directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue a circular to all scheduled banks and financial institutions to ensure uniform compliance with Section 83(2) of the CGST Act and prevent unnecessary harassment of assessees.
Case Title : A V International & Anr. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16149/2023 and W.P.(C) 5024/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 811
The Delhi High Court has held that two show cause notices issued pursuant to the same investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) retain their separate legal identity and can be adjudicated independently, even where they have been assigned to the same adjudicating authority and taken up together for hearing. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the mere fact that two SCNs emanate from the same investigation, or that they are entrusted to a common adjudicating authority and heard together for administrative convenience, does not convert them into a single composite proceeding.
Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To CGST Proceedings As SGST Notices Came Later
Case Title : Shub Conductors LLP & Ors. v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax GST Delhi East Delhi & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4126/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 812
The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to Central GST proceedings after finding that the corresponding State GST notices were issued later. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the ruling while dealing with a writ petition filed by a partnership firm challenging CGST proceedings as being barred under Section 6(2)(b). The provision provides that where a proper officer under the State GST law has initiated proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter.
Case Title : Bhagwati Electronics & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2179/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 813
The Delhi High Court has held that questions concerning the admissibility, authentication and evidentiary value of electronic data and handwritten 'kachcha parchis' relied upon in a GST case should be raised before the statutory appellate authority rather than examined in writ proceedings. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act against several entities allegedly linked to an investigation into M/s Arora Communication.
Case Title : KANWAL CHAUDHARY vs INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OFINDIA & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9410/2021
The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that advocates rendering services as insolvency professionals must obtain GST registration, ruling that such services are subject to the forward charge mechanism and not the reverse charge mechanism applicable to legal services provided by advocates. A bench of Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the judgment on a petition filed by advocate Kanwal Chaudhary challenging an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) order dated March 9, 2021.
Case Title : Delhi International Airport Ltd v Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4683/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 821
The Delhi High Court has disposed of two connected writ petitions, including one filed by Delhi International Airport Ltd, challenging the denial of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted it liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of its claim in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax v M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Based On Show Cause Notice Uploaded Only On GST Portal
Case Title : Sai Overseas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19692/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 822
The Delhi High Court recently set aside an ex-parte order passed against a taxpayer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, noting that the show cause notice had been uploaded only on the GST portal. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication in terms of the directions passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.
Case Title : Bhavpreet Plasto Chem India v. The Superintendent, Range-41 CGST, North Delhi Division-Bawana
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11294/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 823
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a firm's GST registration, noting that the assessee had failed to respond to show cause notices issued to it. Petitioner had approached the Court challenging the order cancelling its GST registration, the subsequent order rejecting its application for revocation of cancellation, and the appellate order passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The GST registration was cancelled after the firm was found to be non-existent and non-functional during an inspection.
Case Title : Arun Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2704/202 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 827
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to examine the question of whether a person who is not a “taxable person” can be penalised under Section 122(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, noting that the issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain disposed of twelve connected petitions filed by directors and other individuals against penalties imposed under Sections 74, 76(2) and 122(1) of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Senior India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & Connected Matters
Case Number : CUSAA 18/2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 828
The Delhi High Court recently granted limitation relief to an importer whose customs refund remedy became ineffective following the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. The top court in the case had held that a refund claim could not be entertained unless the underlying assessment or self-assessment had first been modified in appeal or under another provision of the Customs Act. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the time spent by the importer in pursuing the refund remedy could not be treated as ordinary inaction, particularly as the refund claim had been filed under the binding legal position prevailing at the relevant time.
Case Title : Saraswati Printers v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II/AVATO, State Tax Ward 91, Zone 8 Delhi & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10640/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 829
The Delhi High Court has allowed a GST assessee who participated in the show cause notice proceedings to file a statutory appeal against a subsequent demand order within four weeks after finding that the order had been served only by uploading it on the Common Portal. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that while the assessee could not seek restoration of the proceedings to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice since it had filed a reply and participated in the adjudication proceedings, it would be entitled to file a statutory appeal against the demand order within four weeks without any objection on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16562/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 830
The Delhi High Court has held that the transfer of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing is essentially an administrative exercise. It further held that in the absence of any statutory prohibition under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against such transfer, the transfer by itself cannot be a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was dealing with a petition filed by M/s Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. challenging the transfer of its GST audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
Case Title : Vyome Therapeutics Limited v. The Commissioner of CGST (East) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9141/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 831
The Delhi High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction to examine a dispute regarding the starting point for computation of limitation period under Section 74(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that it was “debatable” as to which limb of Section 74(10) would apply in the facts of the case and relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal.
Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Using Another Broker's Credentials
Case Title : Goodwings Maritime Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSAA 67/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 837
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that it had consciously undertaken clearance-related activities using the credentials of another Customs Broker in relation to goods which were prohibited for import. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the consent or knowledge of the Customs Broker whose credentials were used could not authorise another broker to undertake Customs Broker functions using those credentials.
Case Title : Liberty General Insurance Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4526/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 838
The Delhi High Court has recently held that Central and State GST proceedings cannot be treated as being on the 'same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because both proceedings concern Input Tax Credit for the same financial year. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain said that determining whether proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities concern the same subject matter requires an examination of the nature and scope of the respective proceedings, the period involved, the allegations, transactions or ITC under scrutiny, liability sought to be determined and the material relied upon.
Delhi High Court To Decide Constitutional Validity Of Cess On Pan Masala Manufacturers
Case Title : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 80/2024 and W.P.(C) 364/2024
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the levy of compensation cess on pan masala manufacturers under the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain has listed for final disposal two petitions filed by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and the Smokeless Tobacco Association challenging the levy of compensation cess on pan masala and its constitutional validity.
Case Title : Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) and connected matters
Case Number : CUSAA 89/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 847
The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant cannot seek condonation of an inordinate delay by merely blaming their counsel for failing to communicate an order, especially when the litigant themselves remained inactive and made no enquiry about the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed three customs appeals challenging CESTAT 's refusal to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals against recovery and penalty order.
Case Title : Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings & Anr
Case Number : CUSAA 43/2023 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 850
The Delhi High Court has held that the return of petroleum operations equipment from a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) pursuant to a fresh contract and a subsequent Essentiality Certificate (EC) constitutes a fresh import and not a re-import. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that merely because the equipment was physically the same as that which had earlier been imported into India, it could not be treated as a re-import.
Delhi High Court Declines Common Adjudication Of Three Customs SCNs Despite Overlapping Evidence
Case Title : Zenlayer Networks India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7091/2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
The Delhi High Court has refused to order common adjudication of three show cause notices arising out of a single Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation, holding that although there was substantial overlap in the material relied upon by the Department, the notices had distinct subject matters and arose at different stages of the alleged transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain also declined to entertain challenges to the customs adjudication orders in writ jurisdiction, leaving the Petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Icd, Tkd, New Delhi and connected matters
Case no.: CUSAA 82/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that an importer, being the ultimate beneficiary of duty benefits, has the responsibility to verify the genuineness of duty credit scrips used for customs clearance. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that an importer cannot escape liability for forged or manipulated scrips by shifting the blame to its agent. The Court was dealing with a batch of six customs appeals and 41 writ petitions arising from an investigation into large-scale customs duty evasion through forged and manipulated duty credit scrips used by importers of paper and paper articles between 2011 and 2015.
Pending GST Fraud Case No Ground To Restrict Passport Renewal To Three Years: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Atul Modi v. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence
CITATION : 2026 llbIZ HC (DEL) 860
The Delhi High Court on 20 August held that the pendency of a criminal case concerning alleged Goods and Services Tax fraud cannot justify restricting an accused person's passport renewal to three years when sufficient safeguards prevent him from leaving India without the Court's permission. Justice Saurabh Banerjee modified the trial court's order limiting Atul Modi's passport renewal to three years and directed that his passport be renewed for the regular term of ten years.
Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Fake GST Case Involving Misuse Of PAN Cards
Case Title : Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number : BAIL APPLN. 1632/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 862
The Delhi High Court on 20 August dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of creating fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) entities by allegedly misusing the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) cards and other credentials of unsuspecting individuals. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that filing fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns by misusing the PANs and other credentials of innocent persons has serious consequences for victims and “tremendous ramifications” for the country's economy.
Lending Customs Broker Licence And Dongle For Money Prohibited Under CBLR: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pardeep Kumar Prashar v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)
Case Number : CUSAA 75/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 865
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a Customs Broker cannot lend his licence and dongle to another person for monetary consideration, as such conduct amounts to impermissible transfer of the licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain upheld the revocation of the appellant, Pardeep Kumar Prashar's Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of his security deposit of Rs. 75,000 and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
Judicial Review Cannot Re-Appreciate Settlement Commission Evidence: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8723/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 866
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that while exercising judicial review over orders of the Settlement Commission, it cannot re-appreciate evidence considered by the Commission or substitute its own assessment for that of the Commission. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. challenging the rejection of a claim for adjustment of Rs. 31.93 lakh towards reversal of CENVAT credit against Central Excise duty liability.
Case Title : M/s Nitco Ltd. and Anr. v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission
Case Number : W.P.(C) 976/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 867
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a taxpayer who voluntarily chooses to settle a dispute before the Settlement Commission cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the underlying show cause notice (SCN) through a writ petition. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nitco Ltd. challenging an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission.
Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Employee Over Undeposited TDS
Case Title : Shravan Rustagi v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16067/2025 & CM APPL. 65785/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 884
The Delhi High Court on 21 August quashed a tax demand raised against a taxpayer after finding that his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted from his salary. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the petition and directed the Revenue to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months. The dispute arose from an intimation dated 23 September 2025 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Says How GST Proceedings Are to Be Initiated Can't Be Decided in Writ Petition
Case Title : Gias Uddin Ahmed & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/2540/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 25
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to decide whether GST proceedings should be initiated under the normal recovery provisions or the fraud-related provisions of the CGST Act, as that issue requires factual adjudication by the proper officer. Single Judge Justice Devashis Baruah observed that whether a taxpayer committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax can only be determined after examining the facts and, therefore, cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
GST Officers Cannot Keep Tax Consultant's Office Sealed After Search Ends: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Sri Surendra Sharma v. The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/3035/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 27
The Gauhati High Court on 10 August held that GST authorities cannot keep business premises sealed after completing a search when the owner had not denied them access. Justice Devashis Baruah directed the Assam GST Department to de-seal the office of Sri Surendra Sharma, a tax consultant operating under the name Sharma and Associates in Bokajan, Assam. The Bench held: “...the goods mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of Prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 can under no circumstances be said to be goods liable for confiscation as the things mentioned therein are laptops, desktops, 426 files, Refrigerators, Air conditioners, Inverter, Batteries etc which are not liable for confiscation under Section 120 of the Act of 2017 in the facts of the present case.”
Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Director, DRI v. The State of Nagaland
Case Number : Crl. Pet./18/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 28
The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had directed release of 570 bags of seized areca nuts on a Rs. 10 lakh bond and surety.
Gujarat HC
Retrospective Property Tax Demands Invalid Under GPMC Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : First Appeal Nos. 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759 and 761 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 107
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) could not retrospectively revise the rateable value of a property and demand property tax years after the relevant assessment period had ended, ruling that such demands were contrary to the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the Taxation Rules framed under it. "Having regard to the statutory provisions and rules thereunder, demand of taxes on the basis of revised rateable value with retrospective effect is invalid and no tax could be taxed to be levied or imposed. Thus, the appellant Corporation having no any jurisdiction and/or authority to raise a demand for a period from 2007-2008 to 2015-2016, in the year 2016," the court observed.
Case Title : State of Gujarat v. Western Agri Seeds Ltd.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1889 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 108
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the State's plea against Western Agri Seeds Ltd., ruling that the state failed to prove the company's seeds were not used for sowing and were therefore outside the scope of the Value Added Tax exemption notification. "The petitioner Department has miserably failed to prove before us that the seeds which are procured by the respondents are not used for sowing purposes," the court observed while upholding the Gujarat VAT tribunal's decision to quash revisional proceedings that had revived a tax demand of ₹1.72 crore.
Case Title : Adinath Rice Mill & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14806 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 112
The Gujarat High Court has held that a taxpayer who filed a GST appeal before the January 31, 2024 cut-off cannot be denied the benefit of a special procedure introduced to allow appeals affected by limitation. The procedure permitted eligible taxpayers to file appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by January 31, 2024, subject to prescribed payment conditions. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati made the ruling while setting aside an appellate order that rejected a taxpayer's appeal solely on the ground of delay. The court also held that the appellate authority was required to consider the November 2, 2023 notification and could not wait for the taxpayer to specifically point out its provisions.
Case Title : Torrent Power Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected petitions
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12175 of 2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 113
The Gujarat High Court has declared unconstitutional the levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished by one related company on behalf of another before October 26, 2023, holding that the retrospective levy violates fundamental rights. However, the court held that GST can be levied from that date where such corporate guarantees continue. While upholding the constitutionality of Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules read it down by removing the expression “whichever is higher” from the prescribed valuation mechanism.
Case Title : Gordhanbhai Virjibhai Roy v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7688 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 114
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a bus owner's plea against a ₹53.20 lakh vehicle tax demand, holding that the statutory presumption of use in Gujarat applied because he had not obtained a certificate declaring the bus as unused. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, creates a deeming fiction unless the prescribed authority certifies that a vehicle was not used or kept for use in the state.
Merely Because No Income Was Booked, Business Expenses Cannot Be Disallowed: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 115
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that expenses incurred on business projects cannot be disallowed merely because no income was booked against them for the relevant year. The court noted that if the Revenue's case was that no income had been booked, it had to determine whether the assessee had failed to account for that income or had not treated a particular receipt as income. “Merely because no income has been booked against the same, it would not result into disallowance of such expenses,” a division bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Orders Based On AI-Generated Non-Existent Case Laws
Case Title : Faiz Enterprise through Proprietor Mahetar Mahir Farukbhai v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 10123 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 117
The Gujarat High Court on 20 August quashed GST cancellation and appellate proceedings against Faiz Enterprise after finding that the State Tax Officer had relied exclusively on AI-generated case laws, including non-existent and irrelevant authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that adjudication proceedings cannot be sustained where an authority relies on unverified AI-generated case laws instead of independently applying its mind to the law.
Karnataka HC
No Supply Of Service In Building Plan Sanction Process, GST Cannot Be Levied: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sai Sravanthi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2022 (BDA)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 137
The Karnataka High Court has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot be levied on charges collected for sanctioning a building plan, as the process does not involve any supply of goods or provision of services. Justice R. Nataraj on 21 July, partly allowed a petition filed by Sai Sravanthi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and others against the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and other authorities, holding that the authorities lacked statutory authority to impose several charges while sanctioning the petitioners' development plan.
Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT On Swiping Machine Rentals By Axis Bank To Merchants
Case Title : Axis Bank Limited v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.215 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 139
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the levy of VAT on rental charges collected by Axis Bank for card-swiping machines installed at merchant establishments. A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed a Sales Tax Revision Petition filed by Axis Bank. “the rental charges collected by the petitioner in respect of EDCT machines constitute consideration for transfer of the right to use goods and are liable to tax under the KVAT Act.”, the court ruled. The petition challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the reassessment orders for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Recovery Against Company For Deceased Proprietor's Business' Dues
Case Title : BKR Services Private Limited v. Santoshkumar Rudraswamy
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 21878 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 143
The Karnataka High Court has quashed GST recovery notices issued against a private limited company for dues of a proprietary concern run by a deceased proprietor. It observed that the company was a distinct and separate entity from the proprietary concern and could not be proceeded against for its GST dues. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by BKR Services Private Limited along with the son and wife of late Rudraswamy B K, who died on May 25, 2023.
Transitioned CENVAT Credit Valid For Service Tax Appeal Pre-Deposit: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Shakti Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 145
The Karnataka High Court on 4 August held that CENVAT credit transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime can be used to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for a service tax appeal. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting a pre-deposit of Rs.79,77,301 made by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger through Form GSTR-3B.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Advance Ruling On Kitchen Exhaust Hoods In Halton India's Case
Case Title : Halton India Private Limited v. Customs Authority
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 146
The Karnataka High Court on 6 August held that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings must examine material produced by an importer to determine whether kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans before deciding their tariff classification. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Authority's order dated 25 March 2026 after finding that material submitted by Halton India Pvt. Ltd. to establish that its imported exhaust hoods contain fans had not been considered.
Case Title : M/s TPJ Carriers v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 15838 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 148
The Karnataka High Court held that Goods and Services Tax authorities must proceed with the sale of seized goods under Section 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 after issuing due notice if the owner of the goods does not avail the available appellate remedy. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad disposed of a writ petition filed by TPJ Carriers, a transporter, and directed the State GST authorities to bring the seized goods to sale by issuing a public notice and serving notice on the owner of the goods at the earliest and, in any event, within five weeks.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Entry Tax Levy On Hydraulic Oil Dismisses Wipro's Challenge
Case Title : Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 581 OF 2023 (TAX)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 149
The Karnataka High Court on 11 August dismissed seven revision petitions filed by Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. challenging the levy of entry tax on Hydraulic Oil brought into Karnataka for use in the manufacture of Hydraulic Cylinders. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's orders sustaining the levy under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act).
Kerala HC
Refund Of Service Tax Cannot Be Decided Before Determining Nature Of Contract: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO.19432 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 153
The Kerala High Court on 27 July held that the question of refund or adjustment of Service Tax cannot be decided before the Assessing Authority determines whether the underlying contract is a works contract or a service contract, as the nature of the contract determines the applicable tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji partly allowed the appeals filed by Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited (formerly Pest Control India Private Limited) and set aside the Single Judge's finding that the Service Tax already paid could neither be adjusted nor refunded.
Kerala High Court Grants Wild Planet ITC Benefit, Says Delay Cannot Defeat Statutory Right
Case Title : M/s Wild Planet Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 7801 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 160
The Kerala High Court on 28 July held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the statutory benefit of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act merely because it failed to file a rectification application within the deadline prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed the petition filed by Wild Planet Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order denying the company ITC, holding that Section 16(5) confers a statutory entitlement retrospectively and that a delay in filing a rectification application cannot take away that benefit when the taxpayer otherwise satisfies the statutory conditions.
Kerala High Court Denies AVT McCormick's ₹49.54 Lakh Refund Claim Over Transitional ITC
Case Title : M/s AVT Mccormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 12964 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 169
The Kerala High Court on 20 August held that a claim for refund of transitional input tax credit can be allowed only if the taxpayer establishes that the disputed credit stood in its Electronic Credit Ledger as on 1 July 2017. Justice Johnson John dismissed AVT McCormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, which had rejected its claim for refund of Rs. 49.54 lakh.
1% Construction Cess Only On Actual Construction Cost, Not Entire Contract Value: Kerala High Court
Case Title : D. Manoharan v. Union of India
Case Number : WA NO. 722 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 170
The Kerala High Court on 19 August held that 1% cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 can be levied only on the portion of a composite works contract attributable to the actual “cost of construction” and not on the entire contract value. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the ruling while disposing of a batch of 18 writ appeals filed by Class A registered work contractors of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA).
Kerala High Court Holds MRF Eligible For Tax Exemption On 'Compound Rubber'
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 42200 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 171
The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that MRF Limited is entitled to tax exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 for “compound rubber” manufactured by the company. It stated exemption cannot be denied by treating the product as covered by the negative list introduced through S.R.O. No. 38/1998 Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed MRF's petition challenging the State Level Committee on Sales Tax Exemption's decision, which had denied the company exemption in respect of compound rubber.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 12775 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 57
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that stamp duty on the assignment of loans to an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) under the state government's March 7, 2005 Notification must be calculated at 0.1% of the loan securitised or debt assigned and not on the market value of the mortgaged property. Holding that the notification links stamp duty to the loan securitised or debt assigned rather than the value of the secured property, Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed, "A perusal of the Notification clearly reflects that the said Notification nowhere speaks about the immovable property or value thereof. The Stamp duty as per the provisions of the Notification dated 07-03-2005 is not charged considering the value of the land which is mortgaged in order to secure the land. On the contrary, the percentage of duty is quantified qua loan securitized or debt assigned. Hence, the market value of the property is not a consideration for the purposes of assessment of 0.1% of Stamp Duty for the purposes of the transaction where a loan is securitized or debt assigned to a reconstruction or a securitization company."
No Excise Duty On Liquor Destroyed In Accidental Fire Without Negligence: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. M/s Som Distillery Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 8893 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 58
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 August held that excise duty cannot be levied on foreign liquor destroyed in an accidental fire where the loss occurred due to an unavoidable cause and there is no evidence of negligence or deliberate wrongdoing by the licensee. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke dismissed the State's writ petition and upheld the Board of Revenue's order setting aside the Rs. 38.41 lakh excise duty demand, finding that the factual conclusions were supported by the evidence on record and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Madras HC
Works Contractors Liable To Pay Purchase Tax On Unregistered Dealer Purchases: Madras High Court
Case Title : The State of Tamil Nadu v. I.Vetrivel
Case Number : TCR(MD).Nos.23 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 214
The Madras High Court on 9 July held that works contractors are liable to pay purchase tax on materials purchased from unregistered dealers, even when such materials are used in the execution of works contracts involving deemed sales. A Division Bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan allowed the revision petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and restored the assessment orders imposing purchase tax and penalty on I. Vetrivel.
Financial Crisis Reasonable Cause To Waive Service Tax Penalty: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3329 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 218
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed where a taxpayer proves a genuine financial crisis as a reasonable cause for delayed payment of service tax, ruling that a Tribunal's finding of financial incapacity based on material on record cannot be interfered with in appeal. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed two appeals filed by the GST and Central Excise Department against the CESTAT order that waived penalties imposed on Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd. under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 while upholding the service tax demand and interest.
Case Title : Ashok Leyland Limited v. Principal Commissioner and Ex-officio Addl. Secretary to Government of India
Case Number : WP Nos. 28619 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 219
The Madras High Court on 30 July held that Customs authorities cannot deny exporters the benefit of a beneficial drawback circular through later clarifications unless the original circular granting the concession has been withdrawn, quashing orders rejecting 7% brand rate drawback claims on the bus body portion of exported passenger buses. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petitions filed by Ashok Leyland Limited and set aside the revisional orders dated 8 March 2022 and the CBEC communications denying the drawback benefit, holding that the authorities could not impose fresh conditions through subsequent clarifications that diluted the benefit granted under the earlier circular.
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.14460 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 221
On 5 August, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the GST Department cannot retain files and documents seized during an inspection once it withdraws the search authorisation under which the seizure was made, and directed the immediate return of all records taken from a jewellery dealer. A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed the writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises and noted that the Department lost its statutory authority to retain the seized material after withdrawing the authorisation issued for the inspection conducted on 25 January 2024.
Six Month Limitation For Service Tax Refund Starts From SIPCOT Certificate Date: Madras High Court
Case Title : Shen Long Bio-Tech (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1711 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 223
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that the six-month limitation period for claiming service tax refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 must be calculated from the date on which the taxpayer receives the mandatory certificate from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), and not from the date on which the Finance Act received Presidential assent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred and directed the department to consider the claim on merits.
Madras High Court Expands GST Search Safeguards, Requires DIN Compliance And Voluntary Payments
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Principle Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.9040 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 222
On 5 August, the Madras High Court laid down additional safeguards governing GST searches, including requirements relating to search authorisation, Document Identification Numbers (DIN) and voluntary payments under the GST law. Justice G.R. Swaminathan while allowing a writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, a jewellery dealer, held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) officers cannot recover tax during search proceedings and that any payment made before issuance of a show cause notice must be shown to have been made voluntarily.
GST Search Grievance Cannot Invoke Criminal Jurisdiction Under Section 528 BNSS: Madras High Court
Case Title : B. Rajkumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Case Number : CRL OP No. 21452 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 227
The Madras High Court on 4 August held that a grievance concerning search or inspection by Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot be brought within the scope of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), merely because tax officials are empowered to conduct search and seizure while following criminal procedure. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy declined to entertain the petition filed by B. Rajkumar, who carries on business as Maharaja Jewellers in Chennai, seeking a direction to the authorities not to harass him under the guise of enquiry or investigation.
Madras High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Indian Bank's Maharashtra GST Waiver Claim
Case Title : Indian Bank v. The Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : WP No. 27544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 228
The Madras High Court on 31 July directed GST authorities to reconsider Indian Bank's application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in respect of its Maharashtra operations. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that when a single order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 covers operations in multiple States, the proper officer cannot reject a waiver claim under Section 128A of the Act for one State on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if no other officer is designated to consider it.
Madras High Court Orders Provisional Release Of Vimpro Tech Goods Pending Adjudication
Case Title : M/s Vimpro Tech v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 16262 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 229
The Madras High Court on 5 August held that pendency of a Customs investigation by itself cannot be a ground to deny provisional release of imported goods when Section 110A of the Customs Act, which specifically permits provisional release of detained goods subject to conditions, applies. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar set aside the Customs order rejecting Vimpro Tech's request for provisional release and directed the authorities to release the goods subject to conditions, while allowing the investigation and adjudication proceedings to continue. He held: "...the interest of the revenue can be protected by imposing appropriate conditions for provisional release. There is no need to keep the goods under detention until the completion of the adjudication proceedings."
Service Tax | Madras High Court Says Refund Cannot Be Denied For Tax Paid Under Mistake Of Law
Case Title : The Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3249 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 233
The Madras High Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order granting a refund of service tax paid on the supply of floating rigs, holding that the tax had been collected under an erroneous classification and could not be retained by the Government. A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala held that where service tax was paid due to a mistake of law, the Department could not deny a refund merely by relying on the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs Seaport Import Customs House 60 Rajaji Salai v. Msc Agency India P. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 3675 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 234
The Madras High Court has recently restored a ₹90.15 lakh customs penalty imposed on MSC Agency India Pvt. Ltd. It found that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had dealt with the matter in a “very cavalier fashion”, despite the fact that the actual weight of goods unloaded from 150 containers was only 12.5% on average of the declared weight. “We find that the Tribunal failed to note that admittedly, 150 containers were shipped through the same shipping line and in all cases, the actual weight of goods unloaded was 12.5% [on an average] of the declared weight of the goods as per the Import General Manifest [IGM] and the Bills of Lading issued by the shipping line. ,” a Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala observed.
Madras High Court Directs Provisional Release Of 119 Machines, Rejects Retrospective Customs Rule
Case Title : M/s S.P. Associates v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 30536 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 239
The Madras High Court on 3 August held that a Customs notification that came into force after the shipment of imported goods could not be applied retrospectively to deny provisional release of the goods. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed the Customs authorities to consider the request of S.P. Associates, represented by its proprietor Yogendra Pratap, for provisional release of 119 used digital multifunction printing, copying and scanning machines imported under a Bill of Entry dated 17 July 2026.
Six-Month Limit Does Not Apply To Currency Seized As Evidence Under Customs Act: Madras High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Vikram Jain
Case Number : W.A.No.1855 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 242
The Madras High Court on 10 August held that the six-month time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing a show-cause notice does not apply to Indian currency treated as a “thing” under Section 110(3) when Customs officers retain it as material evidence during an investigation. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed a writ appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against an order directing the release of Rs. 21.55 lakh recovered from the premises of Vikram Jain, proprietor of Globe Opticals.
ITC Blockage Cannot Continue Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Metal Trade Incorporation v. State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP No. 35866 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 244
The Madras High Court on 21 August held that a restriction on the use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rules cannot continue beyond one year. Justice S. Raveekumar directed the authorities to unblock the ITC of Metal Trade Incorporation, which had remained blocked for more than two-and-a-half years. He held: “the restriction was imposed on 27.01.2023 and more than 2 ½ years have passed. In view of the same, the restrictions on the blockage ceased to have effect upon expiry of one year and therefore, cannot be continued. Just because the third respondent had passed the impugned communication on 13.09.2023, the blocking of ITC under Section 86A cannot continue beyond one year.”
Madras High Court Quashes ₹4.56 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Shipping Forwarder
Case Title : C. Solomon Selvaraj v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 16050 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 246
The Madras High Court on 19 August set aside a Rs. 4.56 crore differential customs duty demand, along with interest and penalties, imposed on the proprietor of The Sea Shipping Forwarders. A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that the Customs Department failed to record a specific finding, supported by cogent evidence, that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the concealed goods or knowingly facilitated their concealment and attempted duty evasion.
GST Cannot Be Levied On Penalty Imposed On TASMAC Employee For Stock Shortage: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Managing Director v. K.R. Subramanian
Case Number : W.A(MD)No.679 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 248
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 14 August held that GST cannot be levied on a penalty imposed on an employee for shortage of liquor stock, observing that such a penalty arising from an employer-employee relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as a supply of service under GST law. A Division Bench comprising Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar made the observation while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC).
Patna HC
Patna High Court Upholds CENVAT Credit On Captive Power Plant Despite Surplus Power Supply
Case Title : Commissioner of Central GST and Excise v. M/s Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 19
The Patna High Court on 24 July dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeal against Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order allowing the company to claim CENVAT credit on capital goods, input services and iron and steel items used in its manufacturing operations. A Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh held that the benefit cannot be denied merely because part of the electricity generated in the company's captive power plant was supplied to the Bihar State Electricity Board.
VAT Penalty Refund Cannot Be Denied Over Filing Before Re-Designated Authority: Patna High Court
Case Title : M/s S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 9083 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 22
The Patna High Court on 21 August held that the State Tax Department cannot deny a dealer's refund of a penalty under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 merely because the refund application was filed before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax instead of the re-designated Additional Commissioner of State Tax. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kumar Sinha and Vikash Kumar observed that such a technical objection cannot defeat a legitimate refund claim, and allowed a writ petition filed by S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd., seeking refund of Rs. 1,69,017.
Patna High Court Says Permanent GST Registration Cancellation May Cause 'Civil Death' To Business
Case Title : M/s Super Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 6588 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 23
The Patna High Court on 28 August observed that permanent cancellation of GST registration may virtually result in the “civil death” of a business by preventing the taxpayer from carrying on business, while granting relief to Super Enterprises, whose GST registration was cancelled for failure to file returns for six months. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya noted that Section 75(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requires the authorities to provide an effective opportunity of hearing before taking an adverse decision.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes ₹59.77 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Initiated Beyond Limitation
Case Title : Sandeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number : CWP-16774-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 41
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15 July held that proceedings for recovery of deficient stamp duty cannot be initiated after the expiry of the statutory limitation period, and that stamp duty liability must be determined based on the market value and nature of the property as they existed on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari allowed a writ petition filed by Sandeep Singh and another and set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 59.77 lakh towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges, along with 12 per cent annual interest, for a sale deed executed on 5 July 2018.
Case Title : Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram
Case Number : CRM-M-45265 of 2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 43
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a director cannot be prosecuted for a company's GST offence without the company itself being arraigned as an accused. It quashed the criminal complaint against Manoj Bansal, a director of Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed, “In the absence of M/s NIPL, being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against petitioner, a Director of the Company would not be maintainable. Unless the company is prosecuted, no vicarious liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Prosecution of the petitioner in his personal capacity without arraigning the company cannot proceed against settled principles of law.”
Case Title : Ankit Goyal v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana
Case Number : CRM-M-12200-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 44
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29 July granted regular bail to two accused in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case involving an alleged loss of around Rs. 197.39 crore to the government exchequer, holding that the allegations would have to be tested at trial where the case was largely based on documentary and electronic evidence and the prosecution witnesses were government officials. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal passed the order in petitions arising from a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Ludhiana, under Section 132(1)(b) and Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the fraudulent issuance of invoices and wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit (ITC).
Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Release Of JK Cement GST Refund Despite Revenue Appeal
Case Title : J K Cement Works v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Another
Case Number : CWP-29456-2025(O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 45
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Revenue to release a GST refund to JK Cement Works, holding that the company cannot be denied the refund merely because the Revenue has challenged the refund order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on a petition filed by the cement manufacturer, which has a manufacturing unit at Jharli, Haryana.
Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Release Of Roasted Areca Nuts Detained Since November 2024
Case Title : M/s. Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana v. Union of India and others
Case Number : CWP-14871-2026, with connected matters including CWP-28682-2024 and CWP-17983-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 48
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17 August directed the release of imported roasted areca nut consignments that had remained detained in Customs bonded warehouses since November 2024. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor found that the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi had classified the goods as “dried” rather than “roasted” based only on their physical appearance and colour, without applying the scientific parameters prescribed in its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea In ₹48 Crore GST Evasion Case
Case Title : Hansraj Gurjar v Union of India
Case Number : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8382/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a second bail application filed by a man accused of being the kingpin of an alleged ₹48.41 crore GST evasion syndicate, ruling that bail granted to a co-accused cannot by itself entitle another accused to the same relief. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, "It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while considering the plea of parity, the court is required to independently examine the individual role attributed to the accused, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and all other relevant circumstances."
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Excise Duty On Scrap Of CENVAT-Credited Capital Goods
Case Title : Shree Cement Ltd. v Commissioner (CGST) and Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 35
The Rajasthan High Court on 3 August held that excise duty is payable when capital goods on which CENVAT credit was availed are subsequently cleared as waste or scrap, even if the scrap does not fall under a specific tariff entry. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by Shree Cement Ltd. against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order upholding the excise duty demand on the clearance of such scrap.
Case Title : M/s Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10055/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 36
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on annuity payments received by road construction companies under concession agreements with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that such deferred payments for works contract services cannot claim exemption merely because they are paid as annuities. A Division Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. Ltd., challenging CBIC Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17 June 2021 and the consequential levy of GST on annuity payments received under its concession agreement with NHAI.
Rajasthan High Court Says Customs Cannot Recover Excess Drawback Without Reassessment
Case Title : M/s Bhati & Company v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19673/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 38
The Rajasthan High Court on 12 August held that Customs authorities cannot directly invoke Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover alleged excess drawback without first reassessing the exporter's self-assessment under Section 17 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Sangeeta Sharma allowed writ petitions filed by Bhati & Company and Latiyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. and granted the Customs authorities liberty to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, if permissible in law.
Rajasthan High Court Says Supplier's Tax Payment Mandatory For ITC, Upholds Recovery From Buyer
Case Title : M/s Shree Karni Electrovision v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4266/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 39
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August held that actual payment of tax by the supplier to the Government is a mandatory condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and that the credit can be recovered from the purchaser if the supplier fails to pay the corresponding tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a writ petition filed by Shree Karni Electrovision, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and an order dated 24 November 2022 directing recovery of ITC.
Case Title : M/s Saini Multispecialty Hospital v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12376/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 40
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 August declined to interfere with labour cess recovery proceedings against Saini Multispecialty Hospital, holding that payment of Rs. 45,000 to a municipal body could not by itself discharge the hospital's statutory liability under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar at the Jaipur Bench held that the cess had to be assessed and deposited with the authority prescribed under the statutory scheme and dismissed the hospital's challenge to the recovery proceedings.
Telangana HC
Case Title : M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.3704 and 7449 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 57
The Telangana High Court on 5 August held that movement of vehicles from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s Zaheerabad manufacturing unit to its regional sales offices in other States constituted inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda upheld a tax demand of around Rs. 43.48 crore, and dismissed two writ petitions filed by the company. It observed: “...It is not necessary, for a transaction to fall within Section 3(a) of the CST Act, 1956 that the contract of sale be reduced to a single formal document bearing that description. It is sufficient that the covenant or incident of sale be discernible from the conduct and correspondence of the parties, read as a whole.”
Telangana High Court Upholds Law Levying Non-Agricultural Land Tax At Different Rates Based On Use
Case Title : Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.8883 of 1992
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 59
The Telangana High Court has upheld a law that levies non-agricultural land assessment at different rates based on the use of the land, rejecting a constitutional challenge that the levy could become arbitrary if industrial rates were imposed on land not actually used for industrial purposes. The bench comprised Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice P. Sam Koshy, Justice K. Lakshman, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy and Justice N. Tukaramji. The five-Judge bench held that Sections 3 and 8 and the Schedule to the NALA Act are not ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. At the same time, it ruled that land can be assessed at the industrial rate only if it is actually used for industrial purposes.
Tripura HC
ITC Cannot Be Denied For Bona Fide GSTIN Reporting Mistake: Tripura High Court
Case Title : M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. The Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.379 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 5
The Tripura High Court on 27 July held that a taxpayer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to a genuine mistake in reporting invoices under the wrong Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), when the error does not result in any loss of revenue to the Government. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition filed by Ashutosh Bandyopadhay and directed the GST authorities to permit rectification of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period from 1 May 2019 to 5 February 2020, either through the online portal or through manual means, within four weeks.
CESTAT
Coal Beneficiation Not Taxable As Business Auxiliary Service Before June 1, 2007: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South v. Aryan Coal Benefications Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 53733 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 475
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has recently held that beneficiation and washing of coal could not be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period prior to June 1, 2007. Relying on an earlier case involving the taxpayer beore it, the tribunal ruled, "In that circumstance, reliance has been placed in appellant's own case for the earlier case(supra), we hold that the activity of beneficiation/ washing of coal does not fall under the category of “Business Auxiliary Service” prior to 01.06.2007 as the same is classified under Mining Service w.e.f. 01.06.2007" the tribunal observed.
LIC Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Premiums Retained After Policy Lapse: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85811 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 476
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is not liable to pay service tax on premiums retained after insurance policies lapse or are repudiated. It held that retaining such amounts does not amount to a taxable service of "agreeing to tolerate an act" under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. A coram of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that there was no independent agreement under which LIC agreed, for consideration, to tolerate any act by a policyholder.
Case Title : RKPS Impex Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86722 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 478
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that finding excess imported goods during examination, even when their assessable value is enhanced, does not by itself establish misdeclaration under the Customs Act, 1962. Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that the department had produced no evidence to show the importer had ordered or suppressed the excess quantity of goods, and held that confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained merely because excess goods were found.
CESTAT Bangalore Allows ACC CENVAT Credit On Fly Ash Transport And Pond Maintenance Services
Case Title : ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20134 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 477
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has ruled in favour of ACC Ltd., holding that the cement manufacturer cannot be denied CENVAT credit on services used to maintain a fly ash pond and transport fly ash to its factory merely because those services were rendered outside the factory premises. It noted that the services were used to bring an essential raw material to the factory for manufacturing and threfore outside taxability. "We find that admittedly there is no dispute that the fly ash in question is the raw material / input for manufacturing of finished goods," the tribunal observed.
Skoda's Technical Know-How Licence To Indian Unit Not Consulting Engineer Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 87065 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 479
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.'s licence to use technical know-how, technical documentation, and trademarks from its Czech parent company did not amount to a "Consulting Engineer Service" under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench observed that the arrangement was merely a licence to use pre-existing intellectual property and not a contract for engineering advice or consultancy.
Labour Contractor Liable For Service Tax Despite Production-Based Payments: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Padam Charan Guman Singh v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51071 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 480
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that a labour contractor providing workers to a steel company was liable to pay service tax as the agreement was a manpower supply contract and not a job work arrangement for manufacturing. A Bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Padam Charan Guman Singh and upheld the demand of service tax, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (penalty for suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax).
Case Title : Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 75999, 76001-76007 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 482
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹8.97 crore against Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (GEECL), ruling that compressing natural gas solely to facilitate transportation does not amount to the manufacture of compressed natural gas (CNG). Relying on its earlier ruling in GEECL's own case and its decision in Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Ltd., the tribunal observed, "The above two case laws make it clear that the activity of compression taken up by the appellant for transportation does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the CEA 1944."
Cut Umbrella Panels Treated As Made-Up Textile Articles, Not Woven Fabric For Tax: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Citizen Umbrella Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75192 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 481
The Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 August held that umbrella panel fabric cut into predetermined triangular shapes and sizes is classifiable as a “made-up textile article” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6307 and not as woven fabric of synthetic filament yarn under CTH 5407. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the demand of differential customs duty, interest and penalty, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act (which allows recovery of duty for an extended period in cases of suppression or misdeclaration) could not be invoked as the importer had disclosed the description and classification of the goods in the Bills of Entry.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Reclassification Of Poultry Cage Components As Iron and Steel Structures
Case Title : Sri Selvi Weld Mesh v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40488 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 483
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the reclassification of weld mesh components used in poultry battery cages. It held that the Revenue failed to explain how products admittedly manufactured exclusively for use in poultry battery cages could be treated as iron and steel structures under the Central Excise Tariff. "The Revenue has not made any attempt in placing on record conceivable and convincing reasons as to how the goods under dispute could become structures or parts etc. under CETH 7308. Viewed thus, we are also of the opinion that the Department has seriously erred in rejecting the declared classification without proper justification and hence, the impugned order calls for interference," the bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed.
Case Title : Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jammu & Kashmir
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 484
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that consumer goods maker Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid raw materials purchased from certain tax-exempt manufacturers. It held that the benefit could not be denied simply because the law was amended later to expressly allow it. "We find that before the amendment there was no express prohibition in the CENVAT Credit Rules so as to deny such credit availed by the appellant. Since the appellant has satisfied the conditions of the CCR, credit cannot be denied for the reason that express provision for the same came at a later date," the tribunal observed.
COVID Limitation Extension Can't Revive Time-Barred Service Tax Demands: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : S.K. Logitech Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75626 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 498
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that the COVID-19-related extension of limitation cannot revive tax demands that had already become time-barred under the statute. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "The subsequent exclusion of limitation during the pandemic cannot revive a cause of action or breathe life into a demand which had already become time-barred under the statute. The law relating to exclusion of limitation was intended to preserve subsisting rights; it was never intended to resurrect proceedings which had already become barred by efflux of time."
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside ₹2.39 Crore Service Tax Demand Against SBI Card
Case Title : SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54203 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 486
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside a ₹2.39 crore service tax demand against SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd., holding that a show cause notice (SCN) that fails to identify the taxable service, the service recipient or the consideration cannot sustain such a demand. The tribunal observed, "We find that the SCN does not specify as to what was the service rendered by the appellants and to whom and what was the consideration thereon."
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax on Packaged Software Sale, Rules It Is Goods, Not Service
Case Title : Horizon Technologies v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86345 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 485
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that packaged (canned) software is "goods". It therefore ruled that its sale cannot be treated as a taxable service merely because the conditions for claiming the available service tax exemption were not met. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that once packaged software is recognised as "goods" under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, its sale falls outside the definition of "service" under the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Findoc Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (along with connected appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60581 of 2023, 60580 of 2023 and 60272 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 487
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has set aside a ₹4.95 crore customs duty demand against Findoc Impex, holding that unauthenticated documents allegedly obtained from the UAE Customs authorities could not, by themselves, establish that dry dates imported into India were of Pakistani origin. Emphasising that the burden rested on the Revenue to prove its allegations, the tribunal observed, "It is not for the appellant to disprove the allegations of the department. It is for the revenue to prove all the allegations with reasonable proof."
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.77 Crore Penalty Against Maruti Suzuki In Customs Classification Dispute
Case Title : Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 54695 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 488
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a ₹3.77 crore penalty imposed on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. over the classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs). It held that customs authorities had accepted the company's classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs) since 2015. The tribunal, however, ruled that the products are classifiable as components of electrical ignition or engine-starting equipment used in diesel engines. Explaining why, the tribunal observed, "The HSN Explanatory Notes to 85.11 extend this heading to electronic control units that regulate ignition/glow-plug operation based on sensor inputs, which is precisely the GPCU's function."
Conversion Of Bare Structures Into Retail Showrooms Is Taxable As “Original Works”: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : West Wind Concepts Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50759 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 489
On 6 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that converting bare commercial structures into fully functional retail showrooms constitutes “original works” under the service tax law and not merely completion and finishing services, while also ruling that service tax cannot be levied on forfeited customer advances or insurance compensation received for goods destroyed in a fire. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 2.61 crore raised against West Wind Concepts Private Limited, along with the interest and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds No Service Tax On Pre-2016 Mining Rights, Sets Aside ₹89.13 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Roy Engineers v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 490
On 4 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on royalty paid for mining rights where the right to extract minerals was granted before 1 April 2016, even if the royalty was paid after that date. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 89.13 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against Roy Engineers, a Bihar-based mining company. It held: “...where the mining lease/assignment of the right to use natural resources was prior to 01.04.2016, Service tax cannot be fastened even if the consideration is paid thereafter...”
Case Title : M/s Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30308 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 491
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that services provided to schools for conducting examinations, including Olympiads and talent search examinations, are exempt from Service Tax as they relate to the conduct of examinations by educational institutions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi set aside the Service Tax demand of Rs. 1.94 crore, along with interest and penalties, raised against Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. for the period April 2014 to June 2017.
Recovery Of LC Charges By Non-Banking Entity Not Taxable As Banking Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50241 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 492
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the issuance of a Letter of Credit (LC) by a person or body corporate not engaged in banking, financial, or similar activities is not covered under the taxable category of "Banking and Other Financial Services." It ruled that the recovery of LC charges by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) from buyers in High Seas Sale (HSS) transactions is therefore not liable to service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, "In other words, since the issue of LC by a person or body corporate, not engaged in banking, financial or similar activities is not covered in the list of services of clause (ix), the recovery of LC charges by the appellant from their HSS buyers is not liable to service tax."
LED Modules Imported For Street Lights Attract 10% Customs Duty, Not 20% As Lamp Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC Import Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51772 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 493
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that LED modules imported for manufacturing street lights cannot be classified as parts of lamps and lighting fittings merely because they are intended for use in street lights. A coram comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya observed that while street lights are covered under the category for lamps and lighting fittings, “the usage/utility of the imported goods is not relevant for deciding classification.”
Registration In Exporting Country Before Import Does Not Make Vehicle Used: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Raju Thomas & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40761 & 40762 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 495
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that a vehicle does not lose its eligibility for concessional customs duty available for new vehicles merely because it was temporarily registered in the country of export, so long as there is no evidence that it was actually used before being exported to India. The revenue must establish that the vehicle was actually used before it was exported to India. “Mere registration of a motor vehicle in the exporting country does not, by itself, establish that the vehicle had been put to use. The decisive test is whether the vehicle had actually been used prior to export,” the tribunal ruled.
Case Title : Givuadan (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2961 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 494
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has held that a customs duty exemption claimed on imported flavour compounds cannot be denied without establishing that the goods fall within the exclusion for compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages. The revenue must prove that the goods satisfy the exclusion. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi refering to a 2002 notification observed, “what is excluded only those goods that are 'compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages, of an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5 per cent. volume, determined at 20 degrees centigrade' and unless the Revenue proves the above the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied.”
Penalties For Service Tax Default, Suppression Cannot Be Imposed Together: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Faridabad Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 727 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 496
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has held that penalties for failure to pay service tax and for suppressing facts with an intent to evade tax cannot be imposed at the same time. The tribunal set aside the penalty for failure to pay service tax, holding that it could not be imposed alongside the penalty for suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax because the two were mutually exclusive. “As regards the penalty under Section 76, we hold that once the penalty under Section 78 is imposed and penalty under Section 76 cannot imposed because both the penalties are mutually exclusive,” the tribunal observed.
Missing Shipping Bills Cannot Deny IGST Refund For Bhutan Exports: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Multiplex Corporation v. Commissioner of CGST, CX & Customs, Guwahati
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75882 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 497
On 10 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that failure to file Shipping Bills for exports to Bhutan, particularly during the initial implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, could not justify denial of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund where the actual export of goods and payment of IGST were undisputed. A Single Member Bench comprising Justice (Retd.) R. Muralidhar set aside the rejection of refund and Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on Multiplex Corporation, which had exported three consignments to Bhutan in July and August 2017.
Case Title : Capricorn Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86161 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 499
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the 15-day time limit for granting a post-decisional hearing to a suspended Customs Broker is mandatory and cannot be extended by the customs authorities. A bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A K Jyotishi was considering Capricorn Logistics' appeal against the order continuing its suspension. Regulation 16(2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs to give a suspended Customs Broker an opportunity of hearing within 15 days from the date of suspension.
Allahabad CESTAT Sets Aside ₹22.84 Crore HCL Infosystems Service Tax Demand As Time-Barred
Case Title : M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70695 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 500
On 10 August, the Allahabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the Rs. 22.84 crore service tax demand against HCL Infosystems Ltd., holding that the demand up to September 2014 was barred by limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan also clarified that the demand for the post-1 July 2012 period was unsustainable on the basis of the provisions invoked by the Department.
CESTAT Mumbai Holds CCSP Suspension Must Be Preventive Not Punitive, Restores ICTPL Licence
Case Title : International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85943 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 501
On 10 August, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the power to immediately suspend a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) approval under Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR) is preventive and not punitive, and can be exercised only where a demonstrable and continuing threat requires immediate action. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A K Jyotishi set aside the continued suspension of International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd.'s (ICTPL) approval to operate its Container Freight Station (CFS) at Nhava Sheva and directed the jurisdictional Commissioner to restore its licence.
Case Title : J.P. Logistics v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 70251 of 2022 and 70831 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 502
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently held that a document issued by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) need not be titled a “consignment note” to qualify as one, as its substance and contents are material. A bench comprising Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan relied on the words “by whatever name called” in Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines a GTA. The provision covers a person providing services relating to transportation of goods by road who issues a consignment note “by whatever name called”.
Case Title : M/s Dabur India Ltd. (Unit-II) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax, Jammu & connected appeals
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 60449 to 60460 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 503
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has sent back a batch of appeals involving demands against Dabur India Ltd.'s Jammu and Kashmir units for allegedly taking refunds or self-credit in excess of the value addition permitted under the applicable exemption. For Unit I, the Department had demanded ₹3.45 crore as repayment of self-credit and a further ₹12.41 lakh as excise duty. For Unit II, it had demanded ₹5.40 crore as repayment of self-credit and a further ₹2.43 crore as excise duty.
Customs Law Does Not Recognise 'Substantial Compliance' In Matters Of Warehousing: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Oswal Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30067 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 504
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has recently ruled that Customs law does not recognise the concept of “substantial compliance” in warehousing. It rejected Oswal Minerals Ltd.'s argument that its imported manganese ore substantially remained under the custody of the same warehouse operator. “Customs law does not recognise the concept of “substantial compliance” in matters concerning warehousing. What the statute requires is deposit of the imported goods in the warehouse specifically approved and licensed under the Customs Act. Storage of warehouse goods in any premises other than the approved bonded warehouse cannot be treated as compliance merely because both premises were under the management of the same operator.,” the tribunal observed.
Service Tax Payment Can't Create Liability Where Tax Is Not Payable: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sun Bright Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50326 of 2021 & 54668 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 505
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has held that merely because a taxpayer wrongly collects or pays service tax, it does not make an otherwise non-taxable activity liable to tax. “However, the fact that some amount was collected and deposited does not create a charge of service tax and no service tax will become payable and no exemption which is otherwise available will become unavailable,” the tribunal observed. The bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was hearing two appeals filed by Sun Bright Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against a service tax demand and rejection of its refund claim for an amount deposited during investigation.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Consultancy To Single Client Cannot Be Treated As Intermediary Services
Case Title : Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Jaipur I v. National Engineering Industries Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50560 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 506
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that consultancy services provided directly to a service recipient cannot be classified as intermediary services merely because the consultancy helps the recipient deal with third parties. The bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that an intermediary arrangement requires three parties. The intermediary must facilitate or arrange the main supply between the other two.
CESTAT Kolkata Allows CENVAT Credit On Steel Used To Manufacture Capital Goods
Case Title : Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Bolpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 78923 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 507
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. to claim CENVAT credit on MS angles, channels, joists and plates used to manufacture capital goods for use within its factory. The tribunal also allowed credit on welding rods and oxygen. Judicial Member R. Muralidhar observed, “From the above Certificate, it is seen that the goods in question including the welding rods and oxygen have been used within the factory premises for manufacturing of capital goods and machines.”
Service Tax Demand Cannot Go Beyond Show-Cause Notice: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Gandharva Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST – Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51031, 51032 & 51038 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 508
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has reiterated that adjudicating and appellate authorities cannot confirm a service tax demand under a category different from the one specified in the show-cause notice. The assessee must be put on notice about the category of taxable service under which the demand is proposed. The bench comprised Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao.
CESTAT Must Decide All Issues As Final Fact-Finding Authority: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Prima Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 78 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 461
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), as the final fact-finding authority under the statute, must adjudicate all issues arising from the record. Failure to consider a contention and render a finding on it amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction, the court observed. “The CESTAT, being the final fact-finding authority under the statute, was duty bound to adjudicate on all issues arising from the record. Its failure to consider the aforesaid contentions and not render findings thereon amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it,” a Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla ruled.
Case Title : ECI BJCL JV v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23371 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 509
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that a later statutory requirement of a 10% pre-deposit could not cure an earlier failure to comply with a 50% deposit condition imposed for pursuing an appeal. The amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, introduced a mandatory 10% pre-deposit from August 6, 2014. Since the appeal had already been dismissed on July 23, 2014 for failure to comply with the 50% condition, the later provision could not be used to cure the default.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST v. Big C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30059 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 510
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that the Revenue cannot continue an appeal concerning a tax dispute after the assessee has settled it under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and received a discharge certificate covering the same matter and period. “Once the statutory authorities themselves accept the declaration and issue discharge certificate, the dispute reaches finality. Neither the assessee nor the Department can thereafter continue litigation relating to the same matter except in situations specifically carved out under the statute,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10441 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 511
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has held that a 2022 notification prescribing a time limit for post-export conversion of Shipping Bills cannot be applied retrospectively to exports made before it came into force. A coram comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh ruled that the notification had no application to Metalloys Recycling Ltd.'s exports made between October 2019 and January 2022.
Case Title : Roy Global Trading Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76318 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 511
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the one-year time limit introduced in 2022 for converting Free Shipping Bills into EPCG Shipping Bills cannot be applied to exports made before the rule came into force. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the time limit under the 2022 notification has no retrospective effect. “Therefore, the time limit given therein cannot be applied for the cases where the exports have taken place during the earlier period,” the tribunal observed.
Export Duty Recovery Premature Before Finalisation Of Provisional Assessment: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : S.K. Brothers & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60035, 60036, 60041, 60042 and 60045 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 512
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹26.96 lakh export duty demand against S.K. Brothers. The court held that duty recovery proceedings cannot be initiated before a provisional assessment is finalised. The bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar found that the rice consignments were allowed to be exported on provisional assessment while samples were being tested to determine the nature of the rice.
Non-Manufacturer Must Deposit Excess Excise Duty Collected From Buyer: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Vihaan Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50243 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 513
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that a non-manufacturer who collects an amount representing excise duty in excess of the actual duty paid on goods must deposit the excess amount with the Central Government. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao made the ruling while dismissing Vihaan Enterprises' appeal against a ₹4.00 crore demand under the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest.
Aircraft 'Dry Lease' Taxable Where Lessor Retains Possession, Effective Control: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Orient Flight School v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40800 & 40801 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 514
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that merely calling an aircraft arrangement a “lease” does not mean that possession and effective control have been transferred to the other party. The tribunal found that Orient Flight School retained effective control and legal possession of the aircraft, and upheld the service tax levy on the arrangement as “Supply of Tangible Goods Service."
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs v. M/s Mars International India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : CEA No. 21 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)62
The Telangana High Court has held that an appeal against a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order involving the taxability or classification of a service lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, and not before the High Court under Section 35G. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs against Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue had challenged a CESTAT order that set aside the service tax demand and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Imported Laptop LCD Panels Are Flat Panel Displays, Not Computer Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : N.R. Computech v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Export), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50135 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 515
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that separately imported laptop LCD panels are classifiable as flat panel display modules, rather than as parts or accessories of computers. The tribunal ruled that their intended use in laptops could not determine their classification when the goods retained their identity as separately presented display modules at the time of import.
Case Title : HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Central
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85744/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 516
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held on 17 August that service tax cannot be separately demanded on the interchange fee earned by a credit card issuing bank when the bank has already paid service tax on the entire Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the service tax demands raised against HDFC Bank Ltd., along with interest and penalties, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. Citibank N.A.
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate v. Tata Communications Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86009 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 August held that transponder bandwidth services received by Tata Communications Limited from foreign satellite service providers constitute telecommunication services and cannot be classified as Business Support Services (BSS). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner's order dropping service tax demands against the company.
DBS Bank Indian Branch's ECB Services To Singapore Office Not 'Intermediary Services': CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : DBS Bank India Limited (Successor in Business of DBS Bank Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86069 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
On 17 August, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services provided by DBS Bank's Indian branch to its Singapore head office in connection with External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) cannot be treated as “intermediary services” for levy of service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Indian branch and DBS Bank Singapore were not two different persons but formed part of the same legal person. Therefore, activities carried out by the former for its head office could not be treated as services rendered by one person to another.
Foreign University Agent Not 'Intermediary' Without Tripartite Arrangement: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jalandhar v. Trivedi Overseas Education Services
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60172 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)519
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 August held that an overseas education consultant cannot be treated as an “intermediary” merely because it acts as an agent of foreign universities and receives commission from them. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Trivedi Overseas Education Services, holding that where there is no tripartite arrangement and only one service is involved, merely describing the consultant as an “agent” does not make it an intermediary.
Deletion Of 'Setting Up' Does Not Bar CENVAT Credit On Plant-Setting Services: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 12756 of 2019-DB and 10075 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 520
On 19 August, the Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the expression “setting up” was omitted from the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, with effect from 1 April 2011. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partially allowed appeals filed by ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. against denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 78.18 lakh, along with interest and penalties, and remanded the matter for a service-wise examination of the disputed services.
Case Title : M/s Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30146 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 521
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that earth excavation and site formation work carried out by a sub-contractor for a government dam project qualified as a works contract service, even though the sub-contractor had not actually paid VAT. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to exemption from service tax under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal consequently set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
Customs Act | CESTAT Chennai Holds S.117 Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Without Finding Of Contravention
Case Title : Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Preventive Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40052 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 522
The CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the ₹4 lakh penalty imposed on Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, finding that there was no established contravention warranting penalty. A Bench comprising Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial) found that 100% examination of the cargo had revealed nothing objectionable and that the documents furnished by Dahnay Logistics were not found wanting. The Tribunal held that Section 117 could not be invoked mechanically and that a penalty required an established contravention or failure to comply with a statutory obligation.
Case Title : M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27989 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 523
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 August held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Rent-a-Cab, Outdoor Catering, Event Management, Cleaning and Photography services merely because they have no nexus with the output services. A Bench comprising Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., holding that credit on these services was allowable, while remanding other issues for verification.
NIL Value Invoices Can't Disguise Overburden Disposal As Sale To Avoid Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50873 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 524
On 20 August, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that lifting and disposal of mining overburden cannot be treated as a sale merely because invoices were issued, where the transaction involved no sale price or consideration. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao found that the arrangement between Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and Jindal Saw Ltd. (JSL) involved the provision of a taxable service, upheld the service tax demand, and dismissed both appeals.
Service Tax Refund On Advance Cannot Be Time-Barred After Contract Termination: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Sry Real Estate Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75088 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL)525
On 20 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax paid on an advance is refundable where the contract is subsequently terminated without any service being provided, and that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to such a refund claim. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Sry Real Estate Private Limited against rejection of its service tax refund claim.
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties On DLF Projects For Service Tax Dispute Over Ongoing Projects
Case Title : M/s DLF Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54780 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)526
On 21 August, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a taxpayer's bona fide belief on the applicability of a service tax valuation scheme to ongoing projects can constitute reasonable cause for non-payment of differential tax, warranting waiver of penalties. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the penalties imposed on DLF Projects Ltd. under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, while upholding the service tax and interest liability already discharged by the company.
12% Interest Payable On Redemption Fine Deposits From Date Of Deposit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60490 and 60519 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)527
The Chandigarh Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that interest at 12% per annum is payable on redemption fine amounts deposited by an importer for securing release of goods, from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, holding that such interest is compensatory in nature. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg allowed two appeals filed by Hindustan Distributors seeking interest on refunds of Rs. 18 lakh and Rs. 27 lakh representing redemption fines deposited for release of imported goods and directed payment of 12% interest on the redemption fine amounts.
Vodafone Idea's Five-Year Delay Cannot Curtail Statutory Interest On Pre-Deposit: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Vodafone Idea Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51163 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 528
On 24 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed Vodafone Idea Ltd.'s appeal against the denial of interest on its service tax pre-deposit. A Bench comprising Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that interest under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act is payable from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, regardless of the reason for the delay. He held: “As per Section 35FF interest has to be paid from the date of payment of the amount as pre-deposit till the date of its refund. The intervening period may be short or long and may have been due to any reason whatsoever.”
DDA's Statutory Status Does Not Exempt Its Commercial Leasing From Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Delhi Development Authority v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II & Anr.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50278 of 2017 and 50191 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 529
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August held that the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) statutory status does not exempt its commercial leasing activities from Service Tax. Also, receipts from leasing Government or Nazul land against lease premium, ground rent or other considerations are taxable when they are not compulsory statutory levies. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed two appeals filed by DDA against Service Tax demands for the periods from 2007-08 to 2014-15, upholding the original adjudicating authority's exclusion of the demand relating to renting of vacant land before 1 July 2010.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Holds ₹54 Lakh Recovery Against Panasonic Time-Barred, Faults Department's Inaction
Case Title : Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Gandhidham
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11111 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 530
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 24 August set aside recovery of Rs. 54,00,034 from Panasonic Life Solutions India, holding that the Department's show cause notice issued nearly six years after the credit was taken was barred by limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that recovery of irregular or excess credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Natural Rubber Latex Toy Balloons Classifiable As 'Toys', Not As 'Rubber Articles': CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Vee Vee Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55805 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 531
On 24 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that toy balloons made of natural rubber latex are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9503 as “toys” and not under Chapter 40 as “rubber products.” Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Revenue's classification of the goods imported by Vee Vee Enterprises, JMD Impex and V.K. Import Export Co. stating that specific functional classification prevails over a general material-based classification.
Arbitrary Turnover Projections Cannot Support Best-Judgment Service Tax Assessment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi (East)
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51848 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 532
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that best-judgment assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot rest on arbitrary percentage growth or earlier-year turnover when actual financial records are available. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside an order confirming Service Tax and CENVAT credit liabilities of about Rs. 60 crore against Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Sample Purchase Orders Cannot Establish All Sales Were FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST v. M/s Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30482 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 533
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that the Revenue cannot presume that all sales were on FOR (Free on Road) basis merely from sample purchase orders relied upon in the show cause notice. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed the Department's appeal against Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the dropping of the substantial portion of the differential Central Excise duty demand for the period from November 2012 to March 2017.
Customs Cannot Reclassify Fabrics Without Laboratory Test To Determine Composition: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Elvance Overseas LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76577 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 534
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata held that Customs authorities cannot change the classification of imported fabrics merely on the basis of their description without conducting a laboratory test to determine their actual composition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside a Rs. 39.12 lakh differential customs duty demand against Elvance Overseas LLP, holding that the Department could not treat fabrics described as “Polyester Warp Knitted Fabrics” as 100% synthetic without scientific evidence establishing their fibre composition.
STPI Charges For SOFTEX Certification And NOCs Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Software Technology Park of India v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20226 of 2014 & 30531 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 535
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that charges collected by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) from software exporters for certifying SOFTEX forms, issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and providing related assistance constitute consideration for taxable Business Support Services and are liable to Service Tax. Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed two appeals filed by STPI against Service Tax demands, including a demand of over Rs. 5.15 crore for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12, along with interest and penalties.
Mark-Up On Non-Taxable Ocean, Air Freight Can't Be Taxed As Business Support Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41329 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 536
On 28 August, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be imposed on the mark-up earned by a freight forwarder on ocean or air freight when the underlying freight was not taxable during the relevant period. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that where the principal activity itself was outside the service tax net, the profit earned from that activity could not be separated and taxed as consideration for a distinct service.
Case Title : Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85678
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 537
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August allowed four appeals filed by Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. against rejection of its refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that the Revenue cannot deny refund of accumulated CENVAT credit by treating services as not export of services when it had not initiated proceedings to recover service tax on those very services.
GSTAT
Recovery Of Inadmissible Pre GST CENVAT Credit Must Proceed Under Earlier Tax Laws: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Tata Unistore Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case Number : Appeal No. APL/8/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (THA) 27
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has recently clarified that GST authorities cannot use Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act to question tax credits that businesses earned before GST came into force and later carried forward into the GST system. Referring to Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, the tribunal observed, "From the above-cited provisions it is clear that recovery proceedings related to inadmissible credit under erstwhile laws can be initiated only under the provisions of the erstwhile laws, even after enactment of the CGST Act."
10% Pre-Deposit For Penalty-Only GST Appeals Cannot Apply Retrospectively: GSTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal-I Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/623/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(HYD) 28
The Hyderabad Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 July held that the 10% pre-deposit requirement introduced for penalty-only appeals under the proviso to Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied retrospectively. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sushil Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas allowed the appeal filed by Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and held that the amended provision would not apply where the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were issued before 1 October 2025.