SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka's Retrospective Withdrawal Of Sales Tax Exemption For Imported Sugar
Case Title : Asia Sugar & Chemical Co., Davangere v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 235
The Supreme Court on Monday held that the Karnataka Legislature was competent to retrospectively withdraw the sales tax exemption available to imported sugar, but dealers who had acted under the earlier exemption regime cannot be subjected to penalties or retrospective interest. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale partly allowed the appeals arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANI
Case Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the Union of India's appeal questioning whether the Bombay High Court could grant Future Group non-executive director Sunil Biyani one week's protection from arrest after holding that his anticipatory bail plea was premature. The High Court had directed that if GST authorities subsequently authorise Biyani's arrest in an alleged ₹1,200 crore GST fraud probe, he should not be arrested for one week from the date the arrest order is communicated to him, allowing him time to seek legal remedies.
Supreme Court Directs FanMade11, 9Stacks To Pursue GST Appeal Instead Of Writ Petitions
Case Title : 9stacks Games vs Union Of India And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 174/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 240
The Supreme Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by two online gaming companies, FanMade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and 9Stacks, challenging GST proceedings against them. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard both pleas. The court directed both companies to pursue the statutory remedies available under the GST law instead of invoking its writ jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Holds BPCL, HPCL Liable For ₹16.6 Crore Service Tax For Marketing MGL's CNG
Case Title : Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 2471–2473 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 243
The Supreme Court on Monday held that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) are liable to pay more than ₹16.6 crore in service tax for facilitating the sale of Mahanagar Gas Ltd.'s (MGL) compressed natural gas (CNG). It ruled that the two public sector oil companies rendered Business Auxiliary Service to MGL by promoting and marketing its CNG, instead of purchasing and reselling the fuel. "The agent Corporations provide promotional services for marketing and sale of goods belonging to the MGL. Their activity stands squarely covered under Section 65(19) as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. MGL is the customer of services provided by the respondent Corporations and facilitated by such services, MGL sells the goods-CNG as marketed and promoted by the respondent Corporations to the vehicle owners as per the arrangement in the Agreements," the court held.
Case Title : Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 23931/2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 250
The Supreme Court has recently upheld the Gujarat High Court's judgment sustaining the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In doing so, it affirmed that a registered purchaser cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless the supplier has actually paid the tax charged on the underlying supply to the government. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the court observed, "High Court was fully justified in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm and uphold the impugned judgment."
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Sanchit Seth v. Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise And 3 Others
Case Number : HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 55
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the arrest, remand and detention of a man taken into custody under the Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025, holding that the arrest could not be sustained when the written authorisation to arrest him was issued by the Commissioner only a day after he had been picked up. The HSNS Cess Act imposes a monthly cess on manufacturers of specified goods to fund national security and public health.
Andhra Pradesh HC
AP High Court Sets Aside VAT Orders On ISRO's Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Flags National Interest
Case Title : Satish Dhawan Space Centre Shar v. The State of AP
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 6971/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 44
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 22 June set aside VAT assessment orders passed against Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, a unit of the Indian Space Research Organisation, holding that an improper tax burden on an institution engaged in critical space programmes could adversely affect national interest. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T. C. D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment orders, and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the Space Centre.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Detention Over Expired E-Way Bill After Vehicle Breakdown
Case Title : Slv Elite Spaces Llp and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 10030 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 46
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that GST authorities cannot invoke detention proceedings merely because an e-way bill had expired when the delay in delivery of goods was caused by a vehicle breakdown and there was no evidence of tax evasion. A Division Bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition filed by SLV Elite Spaces LLP and directed the GST authorities to drop further proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the GST Act (which provides for detention, seizure, and release of goods and vehicles in certain cases).
Bombay HC
Case Title : Neon Laboratories v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, PAL-VAT-E-005, Palghar & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 21301 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 390
The Bombay High Court has directed the Sub-Registrar to register an auction purchaser's sale certificate without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Sales Tax Department after finding that the secured creditor's claim took priority over the Department's tax dues. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat granted the relief to Neon Laboratories, which had purchased the property in an auction conducted by a bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : M/s. Popat and Kotecha Property and Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Case Number : WPO 3068 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 163
The Calcutta High Court on 15 June held that municipal authorities cannot enhance property tax liability through undisclosed administrative policies lacking statutory backing, and set aside the enhancement of annual valuation imposed on Popat and Kotecha Property along with consequential tax demands. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that fiscal measures must rest on clear statutory authority and cannot be justified through internal administrative arrangements.
Customs Appeals Cannot Face Maintainability Challenge At Pre-Admission Stage: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Port v. M/s Greenpanel Industries Limited
Case Number : CUSTA 88 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 170
The Calcutta High Court on 10 July held that parties in customs appeals cannot challenge the maintainability of such appeals at the pre-admission stage, and must raise objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability only after the Court determines whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar rejected the respondents' request for a preliminary hearing on maintainability while hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Order Uploaded A Day After Limitation Expired
Case Title : M. M. Motors & Anr. v. The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 8929 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 177
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a GST adjudication order even though its summary was uploaded on the common portal a day after the limitation period expired. The court held that the statutory limitation applies to the issuance of the order and not to its subsequent service. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed a writ petition filed by M. M. Motors and another challenging an adjudication order for the 2018–19 tax period. The petitioners argued that the adjudication order could not be treated as having been validly issued within the limitation period because its summary in Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded only after the prescribed period had expired.
Case Title : M/s B. Enterprise & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 1078 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 181
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice due to improper service of notices on the GST portal. It observed that the show cause notice, reminder, and adjudication order were uploaded only in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal and not in the "Normal" tab. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that such uploading does not amount to valid communication under the GST law.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Amit Ranjan & Ors. v. Union Of India And Others
Case Number : LPA 393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 677
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the taxation of Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) under the Finance Act, 2022 does not make cryptocurrency exchanges "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution or, by itself, subject them to public law scrutiny. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia thus dismissed an appeal filed by users of cryptocurrency exchange platform BitBNS, seeking CBI or SIT probe into the alleged withdrawal restrictions.
Case Title : Navalai Enterprises v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case Number : CUSAA 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 685
The Delhi High Court has held that an Authorised Courier whose licence has been revoked under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 can maintain a statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, even after availing the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Regulations. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside a CESTAT order that had dismissed the courier's appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the 2010 Regulations provided only a remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner.
Delhi High Court Refuses Higher Interest On Service Tax Refund Beyond Statutory 6% Rate
Case Title : Seher v. Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Delhi East
Case Number : SERTA 21/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of interest from 6% to 12% per annum on the refund of a service tax deposit made during investigation, holding that once the statute prescribes the rate of interest payable, courts cannot award a higher rate in the absence of any challenge to the statutory provision or the notification issued thereunder. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain upheld a CESTAT order granting interest at 6% per annum under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Notification No. 24/2014-C.E. (N.T.).
GST Order Need Not Elaborately Deal With Every Submission In Taxpayer's Reply: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sunil Chauhan Prop Of Shree Chem India v. The Principal Commisisoner Of Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8412/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a GST adjudicating authority does not elaborately deal with every submission made by an assessee in reply to a show cause notice (SCN), the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the representation was not considered. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that while Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 obligates the proper officer to consider the noticee's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, the adequacy of reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority and the correctness of its findings are matters that ordinarily fall within the domain of the appellate authority.
Case Title : Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9189/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 698
The Delhi High Court has held that an appellate order setting aside the rejection of a GST refund claim does not automatically entitle the assessee to an unconditional refund, nor does it bar tax authorities from examining the claim afresh on other legally permissible grounds. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by M/s Karamsar Poultry Appliances, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹3.44 lakh, which it claimed arose from an appellate order passed in its favour.
Case Title : Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 703
The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not obliged to call for additional documents or clarifications from a business merely because it finds the material placed on record to be insufficient to determine tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by Sodexo India, challenging a GST demand of around ₹8.75 crore. The Court rejected Sodexo's contention that the adjudicating authority ought to have sought further documents before passing the impugned order under Section 74 of the GST Act.
Case Title : Abdul Samad v. Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9182/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 706
The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of gold brought into India from Dubai without declaration, observing that the petitioner's experience as an international traveller showed that he was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, which had held that the petitioner attempted to import substantial quantities of gold jewellery and biscuits without making the mandatory declaration.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Examine GST Liability On Diagnostic Services, Directs Petitioner To AAR
Case Title : Hemogenomics Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1973/2026 and W.P.(C) 4302/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 720
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to examine a challenge to the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on diagnostic services rendered by a private lab, observing that the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) under the GST Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan disposed of two writ petitions filed by a company after being informed that the vacancy in the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling had been filled, thereby restoring the quorum required for adjudication.
Mandatory 7.5% Customs Appeal Pre-Deposit Cannot Be Waived Or Reduced: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9384/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 741
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be waived or reduced, as the Act contains no provision permitting such reduction. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain passed the order while disposing of four writ petitions filed by importers challenging orders passed by the customs authorities and seeking waiver or reduction of the mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining their appeals before the CESTAT.
Delhi High Court Asks VAT Officer To Decide Voltas' ₹1.79 Crore Refund Claim Within Two Weeks
Case Title : Voltas Limited v. Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10085/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 743
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Voltas Limited seeking a VAT refund of ₹1.79 crore pertaining to the first quarter of the financial year 2017-18, after the Delhi government assured the Court that the company's representation would be decided within two weeks. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing Voltas' plea seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes to refund ₹1,79,07,807.
CGST Act Has No Provision To Exempt Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Appeal: Delhi High Court
Case Title : DS Farbication v. The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Others
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9962/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 744
The Delhi High Court has recently held that there is no provision under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, to exempt an assessee from the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing a statutory appeal. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus declined to entertain a trader's writ petition challenging cancellation of a GST registration. According to the petitioner, its GST registration had been cancelled on the allegation that the firm was non-existent and had wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to ₹49,89,902. Before passing the impugned order, the authorities had issued a show cause notice, but no reply was submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing.
Delhi High Court Declines Writ Against Ex Parte GST Order, Cites Statutory Appeal
Case Title : SKG Metal Trading Through Its Partner v. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3895/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 755
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an ex parte GST adjudication order. It observed that disputed questions of fact relating to the validity and sufficiency of service of notices under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are more appropriately examined by the statutory appellate authority. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was hearing a challenge to an order that imposed a penalty of over ₹2.39 crore on the petitioner for the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.
Case Title : DK Enterprises Through Proprietor, Deepak Mittal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10993/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 756
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is empowered to conduct such further inquiry as may be necessary while deciding an appeal and, in an appropriate case, can permit cross-examination of witnesses, notwithstanding the statutory bar on remanding matters to the adjudicating authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand of approximately ₹64 crore on the ground that Petitioner had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the adjudication proceedings.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Cgst Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : CEAC 5/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 760
The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal against a CESTAT order determining the taxability of a particular service is not maintainable before the High Court and must instead be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain relied on Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd., SERTA 2/2024 to conclude, “where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a particular service, an appeal against such determination would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”, the court ruled.
Case Title : Safelogic Freight Agency LLC v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19725/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 765
The Delhi High Court recently observed that a dispute between the Customs Department and the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) over the release of a shipping container appeared to be "driven more on account of ego than on any question of law," after the container remained stranded for more than three years. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while hearing a plea filed by Ukraine-based freight forwarding company, seeking release of its container lying at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Lalitendra Gulani v. Director General, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 766
The Delhi High Court has observed that advocates should be summoned only in "rare and exceptional circumstances" after disposing of a plea challenging a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) summons issued to a lawyer who had rendered a legal opinion to a client. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan disposed of the petition after recording the DRI's submission that the impugned summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had already been withdrawn.
New 10% GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Not Applicable If SCN Issued Before October 1, 2025: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) Cgst Delhi Zone & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8414/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 770
The Delhi High Court has held that the amended provision requiring a 10% pre-deposit of the penalty for filing appeals against penalty-only orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied to adjudicatory proceedings that were initiated before the amendment came into force on October 1, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the petitioners' right to appeal vested when the show cause notice (SCN) was issued on June 25, 2025, and therefore the subsequent amendment introducing the 10% pre-deposit requirement could not be imposed on them.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Rejects Hawkins Cookers' Plea To Compute VAT On Reduced Sale Price
Case Title : Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number : Revn.Pet./1/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 21
The Gauhati High Court has held that Hawkins Cookers Ltd. must pay the balance 8.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on the original sale price of pressure cookers after an earlier ruling held that the products attracted VAT at 12.5% before 2010 and not 4% as claimed by the company. Dismissing six revision petitions, the court rejected Hawkins' contention that the original sale consideration should be treated as inclusive of 12.5% VAT while computing the additional tax liability. The controversy was confined to the manner of computing the differential VAT after an earlier ruling had already settled that pressure cookers attracted VAT at 12.5% prior to 2010.
GST Seller's Failure To File Returns Cannot Deny ITC To Bona Fide Purchaser: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/4312/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 22
The Gauhati High Court on 16 July held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to file GST returns after collecting tax from the purchaser, and that the department must proceed against the defaulting seller. Justice Devashis Baruah allowed a writ petition by Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments challenging the rejection of ITC on generators bought in FY 2017-18, holding that treating the claim as excess ITC went against the Division Bench ruling in National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam.
Gujarat HC
Taxpayer Cannot Claim Refund After Transitioning VAT Input Tax Credit To GST: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Dilip Babubhai Patel, Proprietor of M/s Shree Umiya Timbers v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21685 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)83
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a taxpayer who chooses to carry forward accumulated VAT input tax credit into the GST regime cannot later seek a cash refund of the same credit. Upholding the rejection of a refund claim of ₹18.75 lakh, the court observed that while transitional credit can be used to discharge output tax liability, it cannot be refunded once it has been carried forward into the GST regime. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati partly allowed a petition filed by Dilip Babubhai Patel, proprietor of Shree Umiya Timbers.
Belated Allegation Of Coercion Cannot Justify GST Refund After Voluntary Payment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhalava v. Office of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8399 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)85
The Gujarat High Court on 25 June held that a taxpayer cannot claim a refund of GST, interest and penalty voluntarily paid during search proceedings by alleging coercion nearly two years later, ruling that the belated allegation was merely an afterthought to secure a refund and that the delayed issuance of Form GST DRC-04 acknowledging the voluntary payment did not invalidate the proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by the proprietor of Alpha-1 Tuition Classes and Hostel challenging the rejection of his refund claim of Rs. 1.96 crore under Section 54 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gujarat HC Holds PLA Payment Cannot Result In Double Recovery, Directs ₹3.74 Cr. Credit Restoration
Case Title : Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India Through Secretary & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1996 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)86
The Gujarat High Court on 24 June held that the Central Excise Department cannot require a taxpayer to claim a cash refund after the taxpayer has already deposited the disputed duty amount through the Personal Ledger Account (PLA), as the corresponding CENVAT credit must be restored to prevent double recovery. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition filed by Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. and directed the Department to re-credit Rs. 3,74,33,462 to the company's electronic credit ledger within six weeks, observing that the Department had wrongly treated the request as one seeking suo motu re-credit when the company was only seeking restoration of credit after depositing the equivalent amount in cash.
Case Title : Jindal Saw Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 735 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)91
The Gujarat High Court on 15 July quashed a Rs. 41.53 crore central excise recovery notice issued to Jindal Saw Ltd., holding that the Commissioner of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to question eligibility certificates issued by the High Powered Committee under the exemption notification. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining such certificates could only be examined by the statutory committee that had issued them and set aside the show cause notice dated 17 September 2008.
Case Title : Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 4373 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)92
The Gujarat High Court on 2 July held that GST authorities cannot deny interest on refunds by treating a refund application filed pursuant to a Court order as a fresh application, ruling that where the original rejection of a refund claim is set aside as illegal, interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act (which provides for interest on delayed refunds) must be calculated from the date of the original refund application. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a batch of writ petitions led by Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. and set aside orders denying interest on GST refunds. It observed: “The respondent authority was required to consider the date of initial refund application filed by the petitioner for calculating the interest instead of the subsequent application, which was filed after the order passed by this Court.”
Case Title : LANXESS Belgium N.V. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8794 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)95
The Gujarat High Court on 7 July held that disputes concerning the methodology used by the Designated Authority to determine dumping and injury margins in anti-dumping proceedings must be raised before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Belgian exporter LANXESS Belgium N.V. challenging the Designated Authority's final findings dated 20 March 2026 and the consequential notification imposing anti-dumping duty.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Rule Requiring Agricultural Science Degree For Agricultural Land Valuers
Case Title : Ketan Natvarlal Brahmbhatt v. Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 2167 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)98
The Gujarat High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of the requirement that applicants seeking registration as valuers of agricultural land must possess a degree in Agricultural Science. It held that the qualification bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved under Rule 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, and does not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
Case Title : Messers Shankar Packagings Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 17635 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)99
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a CESTAT order remanding a customs classification dispute, questioning how the tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine CBEC circulars despite an earlier Gujarat High Court judgment requiring the Union of India to undertake that exercise. "We fail to understand how the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, adopted the very same directions and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-look into the said Circulars, despite the fact that this Court had directed the Union of India itself to undertake such an exercise," a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : PSPCL v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 10539 of 2026
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Special Assessment) Amendment Rules, 2025, and consequential actions, including a demand of ₹16.324 crore raised on the Corporation. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma on Tuesday, while issuing notice to the State and other respondents, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner-Corporation pursuant to the impugned proceedings till the next date of hearing.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title : Mohd Hazzak Lohar & Anr. v. Commissioner State Tax & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No. 2434/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(J&K) 22
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High court has held that the seven-day timeline prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for passing a penalty order is mandatory. It ruled that a penalty order passed even a day beyond the statutory period cannot be sustained. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that where the legislature has used the word "shall" while prescribing timelines for the exercise of coercive powers, the requirement must be strictly complied with. It added that fiscal statutes must be be construed strictly.
Karnataka HC
GST Reimbursement Tied To Contractual Terms, Cannot Override Statutory Scheme: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The State of Karnataka v. Yogisha R
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1951 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 105
The Karnataka High Court on 25 June held that disputes concerning reimbursement of additional GST liability arise out of contractual arrangements between contractors and employers and cannot be used to alter or override the statutory framework governing GST levy, assessment and recovery. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. modified a Single Judge's order that had directed reimbursement of GST amounts to a contractor, which was passed relying on Sri Chandrashekaraiah and Others v. The State of Karnataka.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash DGGI Criminal Proceedings In Alleged Fake ITC Case
Case Title : Shri Mohammed Kamran v. The Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.38771 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 107
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Mysuru scrap dealer accused of allegedly fraudulently availing and passing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC). It rejected his contention that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) could not investigate the case because the State GST authorities had already initiated action. Justice M. Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate. The court observed that, after the complaint was received, the State GST authorities transferred their pending investigation to the Central GST authorities.
Case Title : Sri M R Kodandaram v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the application of a uniform property tax slab to Five-Star Hotels under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Property Tax Rules, ruling that such hotels constitute a distinct and uniform class irrespective of where they are located in Bengaluru. A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by M.R. Kodandaram, owner of Gokula Grand Hotel & Spa, challenging a Single Judge's refusal to interfere with a BBMP circular, demand notice, and the uniform property tax applicable to Five-Star Hotels.
No GST Payable On Machinery Returned For Testing Without Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : State of Karnataka v. AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1390 OF 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 111
The Karnataka High Court held on 25 June that a company does not incur GST liability when it returns machinery to a seller for testing without any fresh consideration, as the movement does not amount to a taxable supply. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order reducing the penalty imposed on AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.25,000, while directing the Department to refund the remaining amount deposited by the company.
Karnataka High Court Remands Quikr's ₹1.77 Crore Stamp Duty Dispute Over NCLT-Approved Amalgamation
Case Title : M/s Quikr India Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 15998 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 112
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order directing Quikr India Private Limited, which operates the online classifieds platform Quikr, to pay an additional ₹1.77 crore as stamp duty on a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-approved scheme of amalgamation. The matter has been remitted to the District Registrar for fresh consideration. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that, for the purpose of levying stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the NCLT's order approving the amalgamation is the relevant "instrument."
Case Title : M/s India Heritage Foundation v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 113
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a taxpayer cannot seek a lower VAT rate during reassessment proceedings without first filing a revised return under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, and dismissed India Heritage Foundation, Bengaluru's revision petition seeking to reduce the VAT rate on iron and steel used in a works contract from 12.5% to 4%. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K relied on its earlier decision in Nandi Constructions v. State of Karnataka and held that, since the Foundation had not filed a revised return under Section 35(4) of the KVAT Act (which permits a dealer to correct errors by filing a revised return), it could not raise the claim for a reduced VAT rate for the first time during reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 192 OF 2022 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 115
The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that a person who is neither the applicant nor the concerned tax authority in an advance ruling proceeding cannot challenge the ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such rulings are binding only on the parties to the proceeding. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind dismissed Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (BMRCL) writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), holding that BMRCL had no locus standi to question an advance ruling passed in proceedings to which it was not a party.
Case Title : M/s R.R. Gold Palace Private Limited & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number : STA No. 3 of 2023 c/w STA Nos. 11 of 2022, 12 of 2022, 2 of 2025, 5 of 2025 and 7 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax authorities cannot keep suo motu revision proceedings under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act pending indefinitely after initiating them within the statutory four-year period. While the authority validly initiates revision by calling for records within four years of the order proposed to be revised, the final revisional order must also be passed within a reasonable time, the court ruled.
Karnataka High Court Holds CESTAT Must Decide Limitation Plea Before Remanding Excise Matter
Case Title : Lotus Printers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Commissionerate
Case Number : CEA No. 17 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 120
The Karnataka High Court on 2 July held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) must decide a specifically pleaded limitation objection before remanding an excise dispute for adjudication on merits, as accepting the limitation plea could make further proceedings unnecessary. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. disposed of the appeal filed by Lotus Printers Private Limited and directed CESTAT to decide the limitation issue while keeping its remand order on merits intact.
Case Title : Sri C. Girish, M/s Jai Gurudev Road Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Zone-II), Bengaluru
Case Number : STA No. 7 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 121
The Karnataka High Court on 15 July held that surrender of a transit pass under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act does not conclusively establish genuine interstate movement of goods or prevent authorities from initiating penalty proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao dismissed an appeal filed by Sri C. Girish, proprietor of Jai Gurudev Road Carriers, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act (which provides for penalty where goods are transported in circumstances indicating possible tax evasion).
Case Title : Dhariwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 3157 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 127
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025, which imposed a machine-based cess on pan masala manufacturers, holding that while Parliament could impose such a levy, the manner in which it was levied violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the law levied the cess on the assumption of the quantity manufactured based on the capacity of pouch-packing machines instead of the quantity actually manufactured, which is unconstitutional.
GST Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation For Compulsory Land Acquisition: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Smt. P.S. Shamala v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 12641 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 129
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land, holding that such acquisition is not a "supply of goods or services" under the GST law. "An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is construed as goods. Therefore, there is neither supply of goods nor services, but an expropriation of the property of a citizen using statutory power. The petitioner has neither sold any goods nor provided any service in giving away his property. Therefore, even if a wide latitude is given to the words "supply of goods or service", the acquisition of property by the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain, cannot fall within the definition of the words "supply of goods or service". Justice R. Nataraj held.
Karnataka High Court Rules Secret Commission Claims Need Evidence, Upholds ₹53.48 Lakh Disallowance
Case Title : Shri Rampur Arvind v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.676 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 131
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that a taxpayer cannot claim deduction for alleged secret commission payments as business promotion expenditure without proving the claim through adequate evidence, and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 53.48 lakh claimed as a business deduction. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.M. Manmadha Rao dismissed Rampur Arvind's (taxpayer) appeal and upheld the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : M/s BSR Infratech India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.182 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 132
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a contractee cannot retain a contractor's security deposit indefinitely to recover an alleged VAT-related loss unless it proves a contractual breach, actual loss suffered, and its right under the contract to recover the amount. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the appeal filed by BSR Infratech India, set aside the Commercial Court's judgment upholding Indian Oil Corporation's deduction, and directed refund of the withheld security deposit of Rs. 36.64 lakh with 9% annual interest from 31 October 2018.
Kerala HC
Case Title : The Commercial Tax Officer v. Escapade Reports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WA NO. 177 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 126
The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that interest under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act cannot be demanded for any period before the statutory provision enabling such recovery came into force on April 1, 2009. It dismissed the State's appeal, following its earlier ruling in Casino Hotel v. State of Kerala, which had already settled the issue. The Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act imposes a tax on charges collected for specified luxury accommodation and services.
Right To Cross-Examination Cannot Be Denied Over Unretracted GST Statements: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 19986 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 139
The Kerala High Court on 8 July held that GST authorities cannot reject a taxpayer's request to cross-examine witnesses merely because the witnesses have not retracted their earlier statements, observing that cross-examination is necessary to test the truthfulness of evidence relied upon during adjudication. Justice A.A. Ziyad Rahman passed the order while allowing the writ petition filed by Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP against a GST adjudication order passed following an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
Kerala High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Demand On Bank For ATM Installation In 2016
Case Title : The Branch Manager v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 141
The Kerala High Court has quashed a demand issued by a Sub-Registrar directing a bank to pay ₹37,500 as deficit stamp duty for installation of an ATM under a registered lease deed. It held that the authority lacked statutory power to recover the alleged deficit in 2016. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed that the power to recover deficient stamp duty after registration was introduced only by the Kerala Finance Act, 2019. Therefore, the provision could not be applied to proceedings initiated in 2016.
Absence Of Audit Not A Ground To Reject KVAT Return Revision: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14377 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 143
The Kerala High Court on 15 July held that a taxpayer's request to revise returns under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act cannot be rejected solely because its accounts were not audited under Section 42 of the Act. A Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, holding: “A reading of the aforesaid order would show that it pertains to the transportation of certain gold jewellery allegedly not supported by the documents required under the statute. In my opinion, this cannot constitute a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for revision of the return, for the reasons already noticed.”
Director Must Prove He Was Not Responsible For Company's Unpaid VAT: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Commercial Tax Officer v. Vardhanan P.R
Case Number : WA NO. 1253 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 144
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when tax authorities seek to recover a company's tax dues from one of its directors under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, the burden is on the director to prove that the non-recovery was not caused by his negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. ",,as per Section 39 of the KVAT Act, the onus to prove that the non-recovery was not on account of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty attributable to the Director, is on the said person and not the Revenue. " a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed while partly allowing the State's appeal against a Single Judge's order.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 20081 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 50
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 30 June upheld the orders of commercial tax authorities imposing Central Sales Tax on interstate sales of soya flour, holding that the product does not qualify as exempt “atta” under the relevant exemption notification. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the writ petition filed by Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and affirmed the tax demand raised against the petitioners.
Madras HC
Case Title : RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.No.14847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 166
The Madras High Court has held that mere communication to GST authorities expressing an intention to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) does not create any legal entitlement to such credit and cannot shield a taxpayer from proceedings for wrongful availment under the GST law. NCLT Case Tracker Justice C. Saravanan dismissed the petition filed by RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., now known as Chennai Business Tower Private Limited, which had challenged an order confirming denial of ineligible ITC of Rs. 92.29 crore for the period between July 2017 and March 2023.
Madras High Court Holds ITC Claim Based On Fabricated Agreement Invalid, Upholds GST Demand
Case Title : Phoenix Marketing Solution v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP Nos. 18739 & 18116 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 168
The Madras High Court on 30 June held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be claimed on the basis of a fabricated contractual arrangement, where the agreement and supporting invoices do not establish a genuine business transaction. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed two writ petitions filed by a proprietorship challenging GST assessment orders for financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, thereby upholding the demand of tax, interest and penalty confirmed under Section 74 of the GST enactments (relating to tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts).
Case Title : M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. State Tax Officer/Group – VI
Case Number : W.P.Nos.20935/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 175
The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer must first respond to a GST show cause notice before challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law (which deals with tax demands involving alleged fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement). Justice C. Saravanan dismissed Canon India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petitions challenging the GST DRC-01 show cause notices but granted the company 30 days to file detailed replies.
Madras High Court Holds Unreasonable Delay Bars Duty Drawback Recovery, Quashes ₹38.77 Lakh Demand
Case Title : A. Kiyasdeen v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 24628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 176
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that customs authorities cannot recover duty drawback benefits after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, even when the relevant rules do not prescribe a specific limitation period for such recovery. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against A.Kiyasdeen, an exporter for recovery of Rs. 38.77 lakh in duty drawback and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, holding that the proceedings initiated several years after the drawback was granted could not be sustained in the absence of allegations of fraud or suppression.
MODVAT Credit On Furnace Oil Cannot Be Denied For Exempt Intermediate Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number : R.C. 10 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 180
The Madras High Court has held that MODVAT credit availed on furnace oil used to manufacture exempt intermediate goods need not be reversed where such goods are captively consumed or transferred within the same company for manufacturing dutiable final products. A Division Bench of Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel upheld Tata Refractories Ltd.'s claim for MODVAT credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), holding that the credit could not be denied merely because DBM was an exempt intermediate product, as it was used for manufacturing dutiable refractory products.
Madras High Court Holds Lease Area Reduction Cannot Attract Fresh Stamp Duty, Orders ₹1.15 Cr Refund
Case Title : District Registrar (Administration) Central Chennai v. Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : W.A.No.1648 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 181
The Madras High Court on 13 July held that an amendment agreement executed only to reduce the leased area of a property does not create a fresh lease and cannot be subjected to a fresh levy of stamp duty. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the order directing refund of over Rs. 1.15 crore collected as stamp duty from Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd. (now STT Global Data Centres India Pvt. Ltd.).
Madras High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment Under GST For Lack Of Tangible Material
Case Title : MH Metal and Steels v. Principal Commissioner
Case Number : WP No. 24414 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 184
The Madras High Court on 8 July held that a provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be sustained merely by reproducing the statutory language without disclosing any tangible material or reasons to justify the action. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the writ petition filed by MH Metal and Steels, challenging the provisional attachment of its bank accounts ordered on 26 February 2025. He held: “Turning to the second pre-requisite, the order uses the expression “in order to protect the interest of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Act”. This, however, is merely a mechanical recitation of the language of Section 83 and does not satisfy the requirements for issuing an order of provisional attachment.”
Case Title : Eskay Design v. Union of India & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : W.A. No. 2282 of 2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 185
The Madras High Court has upheld a 2014 notification that authorised officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (now the Directorate General of GST Intelligence) to investigate service tax cases and issue show cause notices across India, regardless of where the taxpayer was located. The court held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) was empowered to confer all-India jurisdiction on Central Excise officers through notifications issued under the Finance Act. A division bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala dismissed a batch of appeals and affirmed the common order of the Single Judge.
Madras High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Ford India Over Breach of Exemption Conditions
Case Title : TVL. Ford India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C. No.81 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 188
The Madras High Court has upheld the levy of Tamil Nadu sales tax on Ford India, holding that the company breached the conditions of a state government notification granting a sales tax exemption on purchases of goods used for manufacturing passenger cars after availing the benefit by furnishing declarations. The dispute relates to the 2001-02 assessment year The exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 381 covered purchases of goods used in the manufacture, assembling, packing and labelling of passenger cars and components at Ford India's Maraimalai Nagar factory.
Case Title : SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WP No.23463 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 190
The Madras High Court has directed the GST authorities to adjust tax already paid under the wrong tax head instead of requiring the taxpayer to make a fresh payment before claiming a refund. It held that a taxpayer who has discharged the entire tax liability within time cannot be penalised merely because the amount was inadvertently deposited under the wrong GST head. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the writ petition filed by SYA Homes and set aside the rectification order to the extent it required the petitioner to first pay CGST and SGST dues before seeking a refund of the amount paid under IGST.
Case Title : Sayar Jewellers v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C.No.40 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 189
The Madras High Court has upheld Income tax additions and penalty against a dealer, holding that a revised return filed after an Income Tax inspection cannot protect a taxpayer from the consequences of suppressed turnover. It observed that a revised return filed after detection does not automatically establish bona fide conduct or protect a taxpayer from penalty. "The revised return filed subsequent to Income Tax inspection cannot be a protection blanket for the tax evaders. Even if the Trader pays the tax due based on its revised return, he has to necessarily show that the omission to disclose the true and correct accounts was not willful or intentional. Payment of tax subsequent to the inspection of the petitioner's premises may be taken as a reason for mitigating circumstance to levy less than equal addition, instead of equal addition", the court ruled.
Madras High Court Directs Chennai Corporation To Reimburse Contractor's GST Burden After VAT Change
Case Title : M/s Sakthi Constructions v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos.15786, 15936 and 15940 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 191
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that government contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional GST paid due to the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime if the change in tax law occurred after the award of contracts. A Bench of Justice C. Saravanan directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to reimburse the GST burden incurred by Sakthi Constructions for the remaining works under government contracts that were awarded before the introduction of GST on 1 July 2017.
Madras High Court Directs SVLDRS Relief To SB Aditya Power Projects In CENVAT Credit Dispute
Case Title : M/s. SB Aditya Power Projects Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : WP.No.3060 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 194
The Madras High Court on 25 June held that authorities cannot reject a CENVAT credit claim on a ground that was not raised in the original show cause notice, and set aside the order denying credit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS). Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the petition filed by SB Aditya Power Projects and directed the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration and issue the discharge certificate after taking into account the Court's findings.
Case Title : Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(MD)16757/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 196
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot deny a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure merely because the principal input and the finished product attract the same rate of tax, if other inputs used in manufacturing are taxed at higher rates, leading to accumulation of ITC. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed two writ petitions filed by Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited, quashed the refund rejection orders, and directed the GST Department to process and sanction refunds of Rs. 10.88 lakh and Rs. 15.50 lakh, along with applicable interest, within three months after granting the company a personal hearing.
GST Law Does Not Mandate Three-Month Gap Between Notice And Adjudication Order: Madras High Court
Case Title : Raj Machine Tools v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tiruvallur Assessment Circle
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 25946 & 25947 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 197
The Madras High Court on 17 July held that GST law does not require a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a show cause notice and passing of an adjudication order, clarifying that the three-month requirement only applies to the period between issuance of the notice and expiry of the statutory limitation period for passing the order. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy partly allowed writ petitions filed by Raj Machine Tools challenging two GST assessment orders for the financial year 2021-22, holding that the provision does not prescribe any fixed interval between the show cause notice and the adjudication order.
Madras High Court Quashes ₹12.58 Cr Demand Against Pellagic Food, Upholds Advance Ruling Principles
Case Title : M/s. Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 39 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 18
The Madras High Court on 9 July quashed the Customs order passed against Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. that raised a demand of Rs. 12.58 crore as differential customs duty, along with interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that Customs authorities should ordinarily follow the legal principles laid down in an Advance Ruling in similar cases, even though such rulings bind only the applicant who obtained them, unless facts or law change.
Madras High Court Upholds ₹2.66 Cr GST Recovery Against Former Director Of CBIGS Advertising
Case Title : CBIGS Apparels and Jewels v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 3204 & 16529 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 200
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that tax dues of a private company in liquidation can be recovered from its former director under Section 88(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, unless the director proves that the non-recovery was not due to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed three connected writ petitions filed by CBIGS Apparels and Jewels, its partner Mrs. N. Seetha, and Yantur Manufacturing Private Limited challenging GST recovery proceedings initiated for the tax dues of CBIGS Advertising Private Limited, a company that had gone into voluntary liquidation.
Madras High Court Upholds 14.5% VAT On Vestige's Food Supplements, Rejects Ayurvedic Medicine Claim
Case Title : M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited v. The Union Territory of Puducherry
Case Number : T.C.(R). No.48 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 201
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that products purchased and sold as food supplements cannot later be classified as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines merely to claim a concessional rate of Value Added Tax (VAT). A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax revision filed by Vestige Marketing Private Limited and upheld the levy of 14.5% VAT on the products, holding that the company had purchased the goods as food supplements under the Central Sales Tax (CST) regime and could not subsequently change their classification to Ayurvedic medicines to claim the lower tax rate of 5% under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Computer Graphics Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 507 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 204
The Madras High Court on 23 July held that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on additional customs duty adjusted through DEPB scrips for imports made before 31 August 2004, as such credit was available only where the duty was paid in cash. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the Revenue's appeal against Computer Graphics Ltd, holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to CENVAT credit on duty discharged through DEPB scrips and upholding the extended limitation period, penalty and interest.
DEPB Licences Not Eligible For ITC Under TNVAT Act Even If Classified As Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. P.I. Polymers v. The Commerical Tax Officer
Case Number : W.A.Nos.384 & 387 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 207
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that dealers cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licences under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, as such licences, despite being classified as “goods”, do not meet the statutory conditions for availing credit. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the writ appeals filed by P.I. Polymers and upheld the Single Judge's order denying ITC on DEPB licences, while reaffirming the earlier Division Bench ruling in Sha Kantilal Jayanthilal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Madras High Court Rules Omission Of 'Wilful Suppression' In Order Not Fatal, Upholds TNVAT Penalty
Case Title : Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case Number : Tax Case No. 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 210
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that a penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act cannot be invalidated merely because the assessment order does not use the expression “wilful suppression” if the material on record establishes deliberate suppression of turnover. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax case filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
Meghalaya HC
Meghalaya HC Declines Writ Relief In ₹112 Crore BOT Annuity GST Case, Holds Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 245 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 4
The Meghalaya High Court has held that disputes involving GST classification, interpretation of exemption notifications and taxability of transactions should ordinarily be decided through the statutory appellate mechanism under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and not through writ proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices H.S. Thangkhiew and B. Bhattacharjee dismissed a writ petition filed by Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited, holding that the company had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Patna HC
Case Title : M/s Munna Chaudhary v. The Union of India
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4593 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 17
The Patna High Court on 17 July held that GST authorities cannot cancel GST registration or reject a revocation application without complying with the statutory safeguards mandated under law, ruling that orders passed mechanically in violation of the principles of natural justice are unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed the writ petition filed by Munna Chaudhary, set aside the GST registration cancellation order, the order rejecting the revocation application, and the appellate orders, directed immediate restoration of the GST registration, and ordered the department to pay Rs. 15,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title : Umagaurav Private Limited v. The State of Bihar
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4914 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 19
The Patna High Court, in the facts of the case, has held that a taxpayer who voluntarily furnishes an undertaking to obtain relief from GST authorities cannot subsequently challenge its validity after accepting the benefits flowing from it. It dismissed the writ petition filed by Umagaurav Private Limited and imposed costs of ₹25,000. A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish held that the petitioner, having secured the removal of restrictions on its bank account and permitted one of the post-dated cheques to be encashed pursuant to the undertaking, could not later contend that the undertaking was invalid or obtained under duress.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Sanjay Verma v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : CEA-3-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2 July held that the one year period prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 for passing adjudication orders in cases involving the extended period of limitation is not mandatory in all circumstances and cannot be invoked by a taxpayer whose own conduct caused delay in the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Verma, an architect and upheld the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, appellate authority and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that the delay was caused due to the appellant's failure to respond to notices and not due to any administrative inaction.
Case Title : M/s. SRO India v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : CWP-11494-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 35
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently quashed a GST show cause notice after holding that it had been issued primarily by relying upon an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, the use of which was not shown to have statutory sanction. The challenge was founded on a document annexed to the show cause notice and uploaded on the department's portal. The document referred to various AI-based aids and included suggestions to "Tighten this further with case-law citation paragraph-wise", convert it into "Order-in-Original reasoning" and "make it lethal".
Case Title : Luxmi Traders Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (Lead Case)
Case Number : CWP No. 27139 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 38
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order on the GST common portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. It ruled that www.gst.gov.in has not been notified as the common portal for serving notices or orders under Section 146 of the Act. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed, "We have no hesitation in accepting petitioner's submission that the Common Portal, i.e. www.gst.gov.in, is not a portal for the service of notices or orders and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the uploading of SCN or orders on the Common Portal would amount to service of such SCN or order upon the petitioner in terms of Section 169 of the Act of 2017."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Ludhiana Trader Accused Of ₹9.66 Crore Fake GST ITC Fraud
Case Title : Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab through State Tax Officer
Case Number : CRM-M-19525-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 37
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Ludhiana-based businessman accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) of nearly ₹9.66 crore under the GST regime. It observed that continued incarceration was not justified when the prosecution case was based primarily on documentary evidence. Justice Surya Partap Singh, while deciding the bail plea of Rohit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Maa Steel, Ludhiana, noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than three-and-a-half months. It also observed that the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
Case Title : M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case Number : VATAP-29-2016 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 39
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 20 July held that a bona fide classification dispute cannot, by itself, establish an intention to evade tax for imposing penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax (PVAT) Act. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor allowed the appeal filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. and set aside the penalty of Rs. 94,500 imposed under the PVAT Act for allegedly attempting to evade tax on mobile phone accessories.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : Premier Bars Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 630/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 29
The Rajasthan High Court has held that taxpayers whose goods were confiscated under the Central Excise law and who were directed to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation are not excluded from the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. It ruled that they cannot be treated as ineligible to file declarations under the Scheme merely because they were liable to pay a redemption fine. A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Premier Bars Private Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement steel and registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title : Gajmukhi Bullion v Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14693/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 31
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the a taxpayer's reasonable apprehension of bias could not be ignored where the Additional Commissioner who approved the investigation report leading to prosecution also adjudicated the proceedings arising from the same facts. The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar consequently quashed the orders imposing penalties and the appellate order upholding them and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Telangana HC
Rent For Furniture In Commercial Lease Not Taxable As Deemed Sale: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s SDE Engineers Limited and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 9991, 3865 & 3866 of 2009 and T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 43
The Telangana High Court on 3 July held that rent received from leasing commercial buildings along with furniture, fixtures and other amenities cannot be taxed as a transfer of the right to use goods under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (APVAT Act) or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST Act), where the transaction is essentially one of renting immovable property and no exclusive right over the goods is transferred to the tenant. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao allowed a batch of writ petitions and a tax revision case filed by SDE Engineers Ltd. and other developers, setting aside tax demands raised under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act and Section 5E of the APGST Act, which levy tax on the transfer of the right to use goods.
Telangana High Court Upholds Sales Tax On Blended Coffee Sold By Trademark Holder Beyond First Sale
Case Title : M/s. Amalgamated Holdings Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE No.216 & 217 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 47
The Telangana High Court has upheld the levy of sales tax on blended coffee sold by a trademark holder. It held that a dealer marketing goods under its own brand name at a point other than the first sale is liable to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the tax revision cases filed by Amalgamated Holdings Limited. Relying on an earlier ruling, it found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the sales tax authorities and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Best Judgment Assessment Cannot Ignore VAT Composition Scheme Compliance By Contractor: Telangana HC
Case Title : M/s. Chaitanya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others
Case Number : Writ Petition No.20503 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 50
The Telangana High Court on 13 July held that a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained when the assessing authority fails to consider the statutory composition scheme opted by a works contractor and ignores the records maintained in accordance with the law. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Nandikonda Narsing Rao set aside the assessment order passed against Chaitanya Enterprises, a proprietary concern engaged in electrical contracting works, which had challenged the levy of VAT of Rs. 28.09 lakh for the period from September 2005 to February 2008.
Case Title : Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITTA.Nos.30, 31 and 32 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 53
The Telangana High Court on 19 June held that tax authorities cannot deny a taxpayer the benefit of a sales tax deferment scheme merely because statutory adjustment orders supporting the claim were not available during the original assessment proceedings, and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining the subsequent orders. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao partly allowed the appeals filed by Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Limited and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the Form VAT-205 adjustment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and decide the company's entitlement to the benefit under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act (which allows deduction for certain statutory liabilities subject to prescribed conditions).
Case Title : The State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s Mayuri Film Distributors
Case Number : TREVC. No. 26 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 55
The Telangana High Court on 24 July held that a tax concession granted through a Government notification cannot be withdrawn merely because a new entry is introduced in a tax schedule, unless the notification granting the benefit is expressly withdrawn, superseded or rescinded. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao upheld the concessional sales tax benefit claimed by Mayuri Film Distributors on the sale of audio cassettes, holding that the Government Order granting the concession continued to operate during the relevant assessment year.
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 285 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 4
The Tripura High Court on 30 June held that Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities cannot initiate adjudication proceedings on issues that have already been taken up by State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) authorities on the same subject matter. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit quashed a challenge to a demand cum show cause notice dated 22 July 2024 and an Order in Original dated 3 February 2025 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision deals with recovery of tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
CESTAT
Service Tax Amnesty Declaration Cannot Be Reopened After Statutory Deadline: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : SSS Constructions v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41087 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 388
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that the Service Tax Department cannot reopen a declaration accepted under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) after the statutory time limit prescribed under the Scheme has expired. VCES, introduced in 2013, was a one-time service tax amnesty scheme that allowed taxpayers to voluntarily disclose and pay unpaid service tax dues from earlier years in return for immunity from further proceedings.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Municipal Multi-Level Parking Not Taxable, Sets Aside ₹1.85 Cr Demand
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I v. M/s Gautam Builders
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60762 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 389
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July held that construction of a multi-level parking facility for a municipal corporation does not amount to a commercial activity when undertaken for public welfare and civic use. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 1.85 crore raised against Gautam Builders, and upheld an order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : M/s. Tata Bluescope Steel (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50001 of 2026 (SM)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 390
On 1 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that job work activity already treated as “manufacture” cannot later be reclassified as an “exempted service” for the purpose of invoking Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and raising consequential demands. A Bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed all three appeals filed by Tata Bluescope Steel Pvt. Ltd., set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and quashed the CENVAT credit demands raised by the Department.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Sub-Contract Road Work Inherits Exemption, Sets Aside Over ₹35 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Harish Chandra Patel v. The Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 391
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that services relating to public road construction executed as a sub-contractor and construction of independent residential houses were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by contractor Harish Chandra Patel and set aside an impugned service tax demand of Rs. 35.14 lakh. The Bench held: “we are satisfied that the contracts of the appellant with these three persons/entities were for construction of roads as sub-contractor which were exempted by S. No. 29(h) read with 13(a) of the notification”.
Case Title : Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50049 of 2026 (along with connected appeals)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 392
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld Customs' classification of Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and their parts as components of automobile steering systems, dismissing 17 appeals filed by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that the issue had already been settled in the company's own earlier cases involving identical goods. A bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, holding that the imported goods were the same as those examined in the company's earlier appeals before the tribunal.
Case Title : Intertek Testing Services India Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 89820 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 393
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to a taxpayer by setting aside a service tax demand. The tribunal held that once the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the services did not fall under the taxable category alleged in the show cause notice, the appeal ought to have been allowed instead of sustaining the demand under a different taxable entry. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban ruled in favour of Intertek Testing Services India Ltd.
Case Title : R.R. Stones Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30414 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 394
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax rebate claim filed more than one year after the Let Export Order (LEO) is barred by limitation under a 2012 government notification governing export rebates. The tribunal ruled that the notification prescribes its own limitation period. It cannot be extended by relying on the general refund provisions of the Central Excise Act.
Suppression In ST-3 Returns Justifies Extended Limitation And Statutory Penalty: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Jain & Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Meerut-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70188 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 395
On 2 June, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that suppression of the actual value of taxable services in ST-3 returns justifies a service tax demand based on mismatch with Income Tax Returns (ITR). Legal case summaries Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that such suppression warrants invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by Jain & Company against the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60427 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 398
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the rejection of its service tax refund claim. It held that notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions on Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units that are not prescribed under the SEZ Rules. The bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed, "the Notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions which are not prescribed under SEZ Rules and consequently the limitation of one year period does not apply in the present case."
CESTAT New Delhi Rejects Duty Demand Under Replenishment Scheme For Jewellery With 2.05% Norm
Case Title : State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC-Import), New Delhi (Connected with Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs and M/s Venus Industries v. Commissioner of Customs)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 50495 of 2021, 50195 of 2020 & 50196 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 396
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that customs authorities cannot demand duty under the Replenishment Scheme when exported jewellery is manufactured through a fully mechanised process and the applicable value addition requirement stands at 2.05% under the Foreign Trade Policy, rather than 3.5%. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC), Venus Industries, and its partner Arun Kumar Agarwal, and set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹3.92 Cr. Demand Based On Compilations, Holds Re-Export Must Be Verified
Case Title : M/s. Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40046 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 397
On 1 July, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 3.92 crore raised against Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that customs authorities cannot deny exemption under Notification No. 104/94-Cus. without independently verifying container-wise export compliance. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the dispute required reconciliation and verification of export records rather than a mere assumption of non-re-export of imported containers.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds Control Of Premises Suffices For Liability In Gold Seizure Case, Cuts Penalty
Case Title : Md. Faiyaz Alam v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76528 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 399
On 2 July 2026, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an individual who controlled premises from which authorities recovered a substantial quantity of gold cannot avoid penalty under the Customs Act merely on the ground that he lacked physical possession, as surrounding circumstances established his involvement in handling goods liable for confiscation. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty imposed on Md. Faiyaz Alam from Rs. 8 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation, Mohali v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51281 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 400
On 1 July, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demands raised against the Mohali Municipal Corporation, on revenue earned from advertisements, holding that a Municipal Corporation was not covered within the term “person” under the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Municipal Corporation, being a sovereign local body, could not be brought within the ambit of taxable service under the category “Selling of Space for Advertisement Service” prior to 1 July 2012.
Case Title : M/s Makin Developers Private Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51048 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 401
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that the extended limitation period could not be sustained in a service tax dispute after finding that the assessee had no intention to evade tax because any amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism would have been immediately available as CENVAT credit. On that basis, the tribunal set aside a service tax demand raised by invoking the extended limitation period.
Case Title : Tata Teleservices Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55075 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 402
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service recipients could use CENVAT credit to discharge service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on imported services before 1 July 2012. It ruled that the restriction barring use of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax where the recipient was liable to pay tax came into force only from 1 July 2012 and could not be applied retrospectively. The tribunal also held that a show cause notice issued in 2017 for the period between October 2011 and March 2012 was barred by limitation because the Department could not justify invoking the extended period.
Case Title : Domnic Jacob Sequeira v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75062 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 405
On 3 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs authorities cannot confiscate exotic birds and mammals or impose penalties merely on suspicion of smuggling, where the goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the Department fails to discharge the burden of proving illegal import. Maps A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by Domnic Jacob Sequeira and Gouse Gaffar Shaikh.
Case Title : Dinesh Prasad v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75468 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 403
On 2 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs cannot treat gold as smuggled merely on suspicion and set aside the confiscation of 1.75 kg of gold along with penalties imposed by the department. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Dinesh Prasad and Raj Kumar Soni and quashed the confiscation order passed by Customs.
E-Rickshaw Parts Without Motors, Batteries Not Complete Vehicles In CKD Form: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 404
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that imported e-rickshaw parts without essential components such as motors and batteries cannot be treated as complete e-rickshaws in a completely knocked down (CKD) condition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed cross-appeals filed by Zeniak Innovation India Ltd and the Revenue in a dispute over customs classification of imported e-rickshaw components.
Case Title : M/s Noor Jewel Impex & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & A.C.C.), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75921
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 406
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, has held that duty-free gold imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme cannot be confiscated merely because it was sent to job workers who were not initially listed as supporting manufacturers. The tribunal held that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had later regularized their inclusion and that there was no evidence the gold had been diverted to unauthorised entities in violation of the Actual User condition.
Case Title : Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 86063 & 86064 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 407
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. correctly valued prototype commercial vehicles cleared to its own unit for testing on the basis of comparable goods and not at 110% of their cost of production. The tribunal held that the valuation method under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which applies where goods are used in the manufacture of another article, was not attracted on the facts of the case.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Crompton Greaves, Rules Type Test Charges Not Taxable
Case Title : Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85138 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 408
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a Central Excise duty demand against Crompton Greaves Ltd., holding that charges recovered separately for conducting "type tests" on transformers at the request of customers cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division).
Case Title : Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42443-42444 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 409
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services such as rent-a-cab, air travel, hotel accommodation, restaurant, telecommunication, insurance and business support services qualify as input services where they are used directly or indirectly for providing output services and are not meant for employees' personal consumption. The tribunal accordingly allowed a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit claimed by Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Reclassification Of Nikrothal Wire To Stainless Steel Wire CTH
Case Title : M/s. Alleima India Private Limited (Formerly Sandvik Materials Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40582 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that the Customs Department cannot reclassify imported Nikrothal wire from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 75052200 (Nickel Alloy Wire) to CTH 72230091 (Stainless Steel Wire) when the issue has already been decided in the importer's own case and there is no change in facts or law. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by Alleima India Private Limited against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the Department's reclassification of the goods based on laboratory test results showing high nickel and chromium content.
Timing Difference In Availment Of CENVAT Credit Not A Ground To Deny Export Refund: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Andritz Technologies Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41236–41239 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July, held that refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services cannot be denied merely on the ground that input service credit was availed after the date of the last export invoice of the relevant quarter, so long as the credit is otherwise admissible and remains unutilised. Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed all four appeals filed by Andritz Technologies Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the denial of refund on a timing basis under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) was unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹55 Lakh Excise Duty Demand Over Pre-1991 Duty Collections
Case Title : Kamal Steel Fabricators v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 54518 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 412
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹55 lakh against Kamal Steel Fabricators. It held that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, which requires manufacturers to deposit with the Government excise duty collected from buyers, could not be invoked for amounts collected before the provision came into force. The tribunal observed, “Any statutory provision unless expressly stated cannot be applied retrospectively. We find that in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the amendment is retrospective.”
Case Title : M/s Shokeen Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70641 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 413
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a customs order confiscating gold jewellery and bullion. It held that the panchnama forming the foundation of the case was unreliable because the Department failed to substantiate it by examining the panch witnesses. A bench of Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Revenue's case also rested on statements that had been retracted at the first available opportunity while the makers were in judicial custody. It observed that the Revenue neither rebutted those retractions nor examined the makers of the statements during adjudication.
Case Title : Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41368 & 41369 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 414
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.32 crore against a Coimbatore-based restaurant chain. It held that the chain was not liable to pay service tax on food and beverages served in the physically demarcated non-air-conditioned sections of its establishments. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeals filed by Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. It also set aside the interest and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Sold Study Material And Student Fee Waivers Not Taxable To Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s FIIT JEE Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Audit-II, Delhi Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50722 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 415
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 July held that coaching institutes do not have to pay Service Tax on the value of study material sold separately or on scholarships and fee concessions granted to students. Service Tax applies only to the coaching fee actually collected from students and not to amounts that the institute never charged or recovered. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by FIIT JEE Limited and set aside the Service Tax demand raised on the value of course material supplied to students and scholarships and fee waivers granted by the institute.
No Service Tax On Reimbursement Of Actual Electricity Charges Recovered From Tenants: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Valmet Technologies Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42435 & 42436 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 416
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of actual electricity charges recovered from tenants is not liable to service tax, observing that electricity is "goods" and such recoveries cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service. The tribunal observed, “Further, eelectricity is specifically recognized as "goods" under the Central Excise Tariff Act and various State VAT laws. Hence reimbursements or collections of actual electricity charges as per the unit of consumption, from tenants cannot be recogonised as a consideration for a service rendered.”
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand After Royalty Was Added To Import Value
Case Title : Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41620 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 417
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand that arose after royalty payments were added to the transaction value of imported raw materials. The tribunal followed its earlier ruling in the same company's case after finding that the Revenue had not shown any change in facts, produced any new document, or established any change in law to justify taking a different view.
Department Cannot Selectively Recalculate Service Tax On Works Contract Invoices: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. M. N. Associates v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21454 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 419
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 July held that the Department cannot selectively compute differential service tax on works contract services by accepting taxpayer's valuation methodology for some invoices while rejecting it for others. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two appeals and partly allowed another appeal filed by M.N. Associates challenging differential service tax demands raised by the Department.
Volvo Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Royalty Paid For Technical Know-How: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20137 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 418
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore has ruled that Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to pay service tax on royalty paid to its Swedish parent company for technical know-how under a Technical License Contract Agreement. The tribunal held that there was no material to show the royalty was paid towards any intellectual property right recognised under Indian law.
Imported Aluminium Panels Used In Mivan Formwork Not 'Moulds' For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. M/s. Puravankara Projects Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.20871 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 420
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that aluminium panels imported for use in Mivan formwork cannot be treated as “moulds” for availing Cenvat credit merely because they are assembled into mould-like structures after import. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against an order granting Cenvat credit to Puravankara Projects Ltd., noting that the goods must be assessed based on their identity and classification at the time of import.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Annual Income Tax Statement
Case Title : Shri Bhalang Singh Phanbuh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Shillong
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76611 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 421
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹6.25 lakh raised against an assessee after finding that the Department issued a show cause notice solely on the basis of Form 26AS (an income tax statement reflecting tax deducted at source and certain specified financial transactions) without carrying out any independent verification or investigation. The tribunal ultimately quashed the demand on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : M/s DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70196 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 422
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹5.22 lakh, along with interest and penalties, against DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. It held that the company was not entitled to claim exemption meant for services provided to educational institutions because its services were rendered to commercial entities. A single-member bench of Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava dismissed the company's appeal.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows KSB's Concessional Duty Claim For Boiler Feed Pumps Classified As Water Pumps
Case Title : KSB Limited (Formerly M/s KSB Pumps Limited) v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 85625 of 2022 & 85631 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 425
On 8 July, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps primarily designed to handle water are eligible for concessional excise duty under Serial No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that such pumps are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item (CETI) 84137010 and not under CETI 84137095 as claimed by the Department and allowed the appeals filed by KSB Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Holds Investment Advice To Overseas Client Is Export, Allows Tata Realty Refund
Case Title : M/s Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85404 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)425
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that investment advisory services provided by an Indian company to an overseas client qualify as export of service, even if the advice relates to investment opportunities in India. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. and held that the company was entitled to refund of accumulated CENVAT credit as the services were provided to a foreign recipient and consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Lack Of Independent Findings
Case Title : Merchant & Sons v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87668 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 423
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence. It found that the customs department failed to establish that the broker had breached its obligations while handling exports that were later alleged to have been overvalued to claim higher duty drawback. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the licensing authority had failed to independently examine the allegations before revoking the licence.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Navi Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86647 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 427
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has imposed ₹50,000 as compensatory litigation costs on the Department after observing that proceedings over the refund of a mandatory pre-deposit of ₹33,373 appeared to have been unnecessarily initiated and were meant to harass a genuine taxpayer. The tribunal directed the Department to refund the pre-deposit along with statutory interest. A single-member tribunal of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order directing refund of the pre-deposit with interest.
Case Title : Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.21220 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 426
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has granted relief to Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. in a service tax matter. It observed that reimbursed employee wages and other employment-related benefits cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service for the period prior to 14 May 2015.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Says Director's Position Alone Cannot Attract Customs Penalty Quashes ₹1 Cr Levy
Case Title : Shri Altaf Ahmed v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 11552 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 428
On 9 July, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a company director cannot be penalised under the Customs Act, 1962 merely because of his position in the company unless the Department proves his active involvement in the alleged offence. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeal filed by Global Enterprises' director Altaf Ahmed and set aside the Rs. 1 crore penalty imposed on him.
Adjudicating Authorities Cannot Modify Final Orders After Appeal Period Expires: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75305 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 429
On 8 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an adjudicating authority cannot modify a rebate sanction order after the time limit to challenge the order in appeal has expired as the authority becomes functus officio after passing the order. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar dismissed the appeal filed by Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had rejected the company's request for cash payment of the balance rebate amount.
Case Title : Hexagon Capability Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30218 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 430
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 July held that unutilised Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) lying in the CENVAT credit account as on 30 June 2017 cannot be refunded under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Hexagon Capability Centre India Private Limited against the rejection of its refund claim of Rs. 22.11 lakh towards accumulated Education Cess, SHE Cess and KKC.
Case Title : Itishree Devi v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75446 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 431
Observing that the revenue had "officially but illegally" usurped more than half of an employee's annual income, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, directed the department to pay 6% annual interest on the amount collected from her. The tribunal held that the interest would run from the date the amount was collected until the date it was refunded. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar observed, "The severity of such a demand is beyond imagination when it is made on a person earning about Rs.6 lacs per annum [Avg for the four years], during this period. More than 50% of her annual income has been simply usurped by the Revenue officially but illegally."
Case Title : India Cements Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30049 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 432
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an importer cannot be compelled to avail a particular exemption notification where more than one option is available. It ruled that the importer is free to choose the notification that is most beneficial. Applying this principle, the tribunal held that India Cements Ltd. was entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid at the concessional rate of one per cent/two per cent on imported steam coal.
Case Title : M/s A to Z Security Company And Other Services v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70614 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 434
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹49.70 lakh against a job work service provider. It held that activities such as repacking old bottles, repackaging glass bottles, barcode sticking, and bottle cleaning carried out for liquor manufacturers constituted exempt intermediate production processes under Entry 30(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Excise Demand On Unmachined Castings Used In Wind Turbines
Case Title : Pitti Castings Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy – GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26314 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 435
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand against a manufacturer of unmachined castings. It held that castings specially designed and supplied for use in Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEGs) are eligible for excise exemption, even if they require further machining before assembly. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that Notification No. 6/2006-CE applies to goods falling under any chapter and found that the appellant's tailor-made un-machined castings qualified for the exemption.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹50 Lakh Penalty Against Individual In Silk Necktie Export Drawback Case
Case Title : Shri Anupam Mondal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75730 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 433
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside two penalties of ₹25 lakh each imposed on an individual accused of assisting in a fraudulent silk necktie export drawback scheme. It found that the individual had helped the main accused obtain a driving licence illegally in a fake name, which was later used to open a bank account. However, the bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar held that while this act was illegal and could expose the individual to criminal proceedings, it alone could not establish his involvement in the alleged overvaluation of export goods or fraudulent duty drawback claims in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Case Title : V I S A Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30407 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 436
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by V I S A Steel Ltd., holding that imported quicklime is classifiable as lime under the Customs Tariff and not under the tariff entry applicable to chemically defined compounds. The tribunal set aside a differential customs duty demand of ₹26.60 lakh, along with the interest and penalty. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “There is no dispute on the fact that the imported goods in the present case are 'quicklime' and thus by applying GIR1 it would be classifiable under tariff item 25221000.”
Case Title : Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50092 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 437
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has allowed Shriram General Insurance's claim for refund of ₹28.57 lakh paid towards Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) and Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) on insurance policies that were subsequently cancelled. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied on the grounds of limitation or unjust enrichment after the insurer refunded the proportionate premium and tax component.
Ahmedabad CESTAT Grants Service Tax Relief On Government Staff Quarters, Remands APMC Issue
Case Title : Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar v. Paresh S. Patel
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10884 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 438
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 July held that construction of residential staff quarters and government infrastructure meant for personal use of government employees is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava and Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against contractor Paresh S. Patel. While it granted relief for construction works undertaken for several government bodies, it remanded the issue relating to works executed for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) for fresh computation in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
Case Title : SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42539 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 439
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹37.54 lakh against SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the alleged tax liability surfaced during a departmental audit. The tribunal held that the revenue had failed to establish the wilful suppression or intent to evade tax required to invoke the extended period.
CESTAT New Delhi Restores India-Thailand FTA Benefit To P.C. Jeweller Citing Verification Rules
Case Title : P.C. Jeweller Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 54806, 54832, 54833 & 54900 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 440
On Tuesday, 14 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) cannot deny preferential customs duty benefits under the India-Thailand Free Trade Agreement without following the prescribed procedure to verify Country of Origin (COO) Certificates with the issuing authority. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed a batch of appeals filed by P.C. Jeweller Ltd. and its officials and set aside the customs duty demands and penalties imposed on them.
Meeting Fees To Whole-Time Directors Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge Mechanism: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Oriental Chemical Works v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51489 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 441
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 July held that meeting fees paid to whole-time directors are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), as such payments arise from an employer-employee relationship and are excluded from the definition of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Oriental Chemical Works and set aside the service tax demand raised against the company.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs (ACC Import), New Delhi v. QIAGEN India Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51619-51629 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 442
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that QFT Tubes, though functionally used with ELISA kits, are not entitled to the concessional 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) available to ELISA kits. ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) is a diagnostic testing method used to detect diseases by analysing blood samples. It held that the exemption applies only to the complete diagnostic kit and not to its individual components. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the Department's appeals and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order granting the exemption.
CESTAT Delhi Upholds CENVAT Credit Reversal On Common Services Used For Own Investments
Case Title : IFCI Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51342 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 443
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the demand for proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on common input services used for both taxable services and an assessee's own investment activities. The tribunal held that buying and selling securities on one's own account is neither a taxable service nor an exempted service. It ruled that CENVAT credit attributable to such activities is inadmissible.
Case Title : HPCL Mittal Energy Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 53388 of 2014 and 54247 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 444
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not make ownership of goods a condition for claiming CENVAT credit. It observed that CENVAT credit is attached to inputs and not to persons. The tribunal, however, ruled that a manufacturer cannot claim credit on inputs where the contractor has availed the benefit of abatement under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme), as that would result in the same tax benefit being availed twice.
CESTAT Delhi Allows Pharma Company's ₹70 Lakh Refund, Holds Claim Not Hit By Unjust Enrichment
Case Title : Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51126 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 445
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed a pharma company's appeal and held that its refund claim of about ₹70 lakh was not hit by unjust enrichment, setting aside orders directing the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao. Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd., which manufactures medicaments, had availed CENVAT credit of about ₹70 lakh on input services relating to service commissions.
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40099 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 446
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit cannot be denied a refund of service tax merely because the services were not consumed within the geographical limits of the SEZ, so long as they were used for authorised operations. A single-member tribunal of Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed an appeal filed by ATC Tires Private Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows YRF Studios' CENVAT Credit On Studio Repair and Renovation Works
Case Title : YRF Studios v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 88234 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 447
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed YRF Studios to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid for repair, renovation, and strengthening works carried out on its existing studio buildings. It held that the services were used for maintaining infrastructure from which the company's taxable output services were provided and were not covered by the exclusion applicable to construction services. The appeal was decided by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, restored CENVAT credit of about ₹3.05 lakh, and quashed the penalty imposed on the company.
Restaurants Need Not Reverse CENVAT Credit For Food Supplied As Part Of Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Speciality Restaurants Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85273 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 448
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 July held that restaurants providing taxable restaurant services are not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 merely because food or beverages are supplied as part of the service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Speciality Restaurants Ltd. and set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit.
Procedural Lapse Cannot Defeat Excise Exemption Benefit When Notification Is Silent: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Power Tools and Accessories v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75489 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 449
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that the Department cannot deny an excise exemption merely because a manufacturer did not intimate the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities before clearing goods without payment of duty when the exemption notification does not impose such a requirement. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Power Tools and Accessories and set aside the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 6.72 lakh, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Chennai Reiterates NIDB Data Alone Cannot Justify Rejection Of Declared Import Value
Case Title : Wellman Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40088 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 450
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the National Import Database (NIDB) data alone cannot justify rejection of the declared transaction value of imported goods or enhancement of their assessable value. It held that the Customs Department must produce independent evidence of undervaluation and establish the comparability of contemporaneous imports before discarding the declared value.
Case Title : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76097 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 451
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the interest demand raised against Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. on customs duty paid while clearing imported capital goods from its bonded warehouse. The tribunal held that interest could not be demanded merely because the goods were cleared for home consumption without being put to use, where they had been imported with the intention of being used in manufacturing.
Case Title : Anil Lingappa Palle, Proprietor of Khushi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 450
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an appellate order that had sustained a ₹1.52 lakh service tax demand after finding that the Department failed to establish that the show cause notice had been served on the assessee before adjudication proceedings were initiated. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Anil Lingappa Palle, proprietor of Khushi Enterprises, against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, which had partly modified the Order-in-Original by reducing the demand to ₹1.52 lakh while sustaining interest and an equal penalty.
Reimbursement Of Stipend Paid To Apprentices Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. India Nippon Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41519 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 452
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of 50% of the stipend paid to apprentices by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT) is not liable to service tax. It held that the reimbursement is akin to a statutory welfare grant rather than consideration for any taxable service. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal filed by India Nippon Electricals Ltd. against the service tax demand for April 2012 to December 2014.
Case Title : Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Skin Care Unit) v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41001 & 41002 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 453
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd.'s refund claims arising from the finalisation of provisional assessments. It found that the company had established, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate, that the excess excise duty had not been passed on to customers. The tribunal held that the refund claims were therefore not barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar held that the authorities ignored a material document forming part of the record while rejecting the refund claims.
Cisco India's Support Services To Overseas Affiliates Are Export, Not Intermediary: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20743 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 455
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that marketing support, technical support, manufacturing support, management support and other business support services provided by Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entities qualify as export of services and cannot be treated as intermediary services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. A Bench of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the company's appeals against orders confirming service tax demands, interest and penalties on the ground that it had allegedly acted as an intermediary while providing services to its foreign affiliates.
Case Title : Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 59641 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 458
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the inclusion of the value of software licences downloaded from the internet in the assessable value of imported hardware locks (dongles). It held that the downloaded software formed an integral part of the imported product and that its value formed part of the transaction value. A coram of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : TV Today Network Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.51678 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 456
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 July held that a one-day delay in filing a revised ST-3 return under Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be condoned as a procedural lapse for claiming refund of transitional CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the order rejecting the refund claim of TV Today Network Limited for Rs. 2.13 crore, holding that the company had failed to establish the admissibility of the CENVAT credit by producing the necessary supporting documents and invoices.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Service Tax Demand On Railway Cleaning and Housekeeping Services
Case Title : Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 79275 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 459
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the service tax demand raised against Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society after holding that the services provided by it to the Indian Railways were either not taxable, exempt from service tax, or part of the demand was barred by limitation. The tribunal also rejected the Department's allegation that the society had collected and retained service tax from the Railways, finding no evidence to support the claim. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the society's appeal, set aside the impugned order, and, consequently, the demand for interest and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Allows CENVAT Credit To Citibank For Cleaning And Event Services After 2011 Amendment
Case Title : M/s Citibank N.A. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42522 to 42527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 460
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 July held that Citibank N.A. is entitled to CENVAT credit on cleaning services, general insurance services, convention services, event management services and mandap keeper services. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the bank's appeals, while holding that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on club or association services, health and fitness services, outdoor catering, rent-a-cab, tour operator and certain insurance auxiliary services after the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1 April 2011.
Case Title : Asian Paints Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85041 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)461
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Asian Paints Ltd., holding that service tax could not be levied on lease rentals collected from dealers for tinting machines after finding that the arrangement amounted to a deemed sale. The tribunal held, "I have no hesitation in holding that the transaction in the case before us is of 'deemed sale' as per Article 366 (29A)(d) of the Constitution of India." The order was passed by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban.
Case Title : Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Apepal No. 86279/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 462
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Imagine Marketing Ltd., the company behind the boAt brand, in a dispute over the tariff classification of imported wireless Bluetooth earphones. The tribunal found that the dispute was purely interpretational and that the Department had failed to establish collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. "There is no element of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts inasmuch as the issue in hand entirely involves interpretation of the Customs Tariff," the tribunal held.
Case Title : The Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30285 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 463
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that manufacturers are not required to reverse Cenvat credit on Sulphuric Acid supplied to fertilizer manufacturers without payment of excise duty under a conditional government notification. The tribunal held that such supplies cannot automatically be treated as "exempted goods" merely because no duty was paid on them. The tribunal observed that the product remained dutiable. It said the exemption was available only for specified supplies made after complying with the prescribed statutory procedure.
CESTAT Mumbai Slams Customs For Missing Records, Calls It Contrary To 'Viksit Bharat @2047' Vision
Case Title : John Miranda v. Commissioner of Customs, Import-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87108 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 464
On 21 July, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) criticised the Customs Department for rejecting a refund claim merely because it was unable to trace its own records, observing that such administrative failure is inconsistent with the vision of “Viksit Bharat @2047”. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member M.M. Parthiban made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by John Miranda and directing the Customs Department to refund Rs. 3 lakh deposited during investigation after finding that the amount was never appropriated and the underlying duty demand had subsequently been set aside.
Case Title : Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 78732 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 465
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside a ₹7.06 crore central excise demand against public sector undertaking Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., observing that the appellant, being a PSU, could not be alleged to have acted with mala fide intent to clear goods clandestinely. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "Further, the appellant being a public sector undertaking, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be alleged to be having mala fide intentions to clear the goods clandestinely."
CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Running Account Bills Are Not Invoices: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50450 and 50451 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 466
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because running account bills are not conventional invoices, provided they contain the prescribed particulars required under law. Observing that, "The crux of the matter is that the authority needs to be satisfied about the relevant details/particular and not the form of the document," the tribunal ruled in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹14.88 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts
Case Title : Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40683
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 467
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a ₹14.88 crore customs duty demand against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. It held that transmission gears imported by the company are classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff and cannot be treated as motor vehicle parts merely because they are ultimately used in manufacturing vehicles. Holding that the imported goods were specifically classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff, the tribunal said a specific tariff entry would prevail over the competing entry for motor vehicle parts.
CESTAT Hyderabad Quashes Service Tax Demand On UltraTech Over Railway Wagon Freight Concession
Case Title : UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27580 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 468
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the freight concession granted by the Indian Railways under the Liberalized Wagon Investment Scheme (LWIS) is a policy incentive and not consideration for any taxable service. A coram of Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, giving relief to UltraTech Cement observed, "We hold that the appellant has not rendered any taxable service to the Indian Railways under LWIS. The freight concession granted under the scheme is merely a policy incentive linked to capital investment and cannot be regarded as consideration for 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. Accordingly, the impugned orders confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalties are not sustainable in law."
Case Title : Polychem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax / CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10801 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 469
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 27 July held that the extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which permits recovery beyond the normal limitation period in cases involving fraud, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement) cannot be invoked where the law did not require a taxpayer to disclose the information allegedly suppressed. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha allowed Polychem Industries' appeal and set aside the demand for Cenvat credit, interest and penalty after finding that the Department had wrongly alleged suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹99.59 Lakh Demand, Says DGOV Guidelines Cannot Override Valuation Rules
Case Title : M/s Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 60333 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 470
The Chandigarh Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 28 July held that Directorate General of Valuation (DGOV) guidelines cannot override the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Also that Customs authorities cannot reject a declared transaction value solely on the basis of such guidelines or London Metal Exchange (LME) prices without evidence proving that the declared value was incorrect. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the demand of Rs. 99.59 lakh along with interest and penalty imposed on Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. over alleged undervaluation of imported aluminium scrap.
CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation Coaching Eligible For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Master Minds v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 27076 of 2013, 23370 of 2014 & 21360 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 471
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that coaching imparted for CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation and Intermediate (10+2) examinations is exempt from service tax under the 2011 exemption notification. It held that these courses lead to educational qualifications recognised by law and that the notification does not confine the benefit to the final stage of an educational programme.
Nicotine Sulphate Not Tobacco Product, Examiner Can't Decide Tariff Classification: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : BGP International v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10003 of 2021-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 472
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 29 July held that Nicotine Sulphate falls under Tariff Heading 29399900 as a vegetable alkaloid and not under Tariff Heading 24039990 as a tobacco product. It clarified that a chemical examiner can only provide analytical findings and cannot determine the tariff classification of a product. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh set aside the excise duty demand of over Rs. 4.60 crore raised against BGP International.
Case Title : Bijay Kumar Jhunjhunwala v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75837 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 473
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that a person cannot be penalised for allegedly aiding or facilitating gold smuggling merely because he is the father or an employee of the principal noticee. The tribunal said such penalties can be imposed only where the Revenue produces cogent and independent evidence showing that the person consciously participated in or abetted the alleged smuggling. "The relationship of appellant no. 1 with the principal noticee, howsoever close, cannot ipso facto furnish a legal basis for fastening penal liability in the absence of evidence demonstrating conscious participation in the offending transaction," the bench observed.
Case Title : M/s. Sastasundar Ventures Limited (Known as Microsec Financial Services Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75922 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 474
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently reiterated that the nomenclature used in an assessee's books of account cannot determine whether a transaction is liable to service tax. Holding that the Revenue had failed to establish that profits earned by an NBFC from investing in a Venture Capital Fund were consideration for a taxable service, the bench observed, "The revenue has relied upon the accounting nomenclature to confirm the demand on the profit/income earned on the investments, as both the profit from investment and management fees have been clubbed under the same accounting head. It is settled principle in law that the nomenclature used in books of accounts cannot determine the taxability of a transaction."
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Rules Paper Bags Attract 5% GST, Not 18%
Case Title : In Re: Canpac Trends Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/24
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that paper bags manufactured from paper or paperboard are liable to GST at 5% under the entry covering paper sacks, paper bags and biodegradable bags, and not under the competing 18% entry applicable to certain goods falling under the same tariff heading. Holding that the concessional entry was introduced to encourage environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags, the Authority observed, "The very purpose of the Government in inserting this entry appears to be to promote the production of paper sacks/bags and bio-degradable bags which are eco-friendly and environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags."
GSTAT
Case Title : Dow Chemical International Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon, Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : APL/2/PB/2026 to APL/7/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (MUM) 26
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has held that procurement services received by Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. from its Switzerland-based group entity were imports of services and not intermediary services, making them liable to Goods and Services Tax in India. A division bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta dismissed the company's appeals against the rejection of refund claims exceeding ₹13.41 crore of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid under the reverse charge mechanism.
GSTAT Launches Token Facility For Appellants Facing Issues In E-Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has activated the token generation facility for appellants facing issues while filing appeals on its e-filing portal. The facility is available through the scrolling highlights on the portal's home page. A token generated on or before July 31, 2026, will be treated as sufficient compliance with the appeal filing deadline. The appellant must, however, complete the actual filing within 60 days from the date of token generation.
Other Developments
Centre Extends GSTAT Appeal Deadline To July 31 For Legacy GST Orders
The Centre has extended the deadline for filing legacy appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) by a month, giving taxpayers until July 31, 2026, to file appeals against orders communicated before May 1, 2026. The extension replaces the earlier June 30 deadline and has been notified by the Ministry of Finance. Under the revised timeline, departmental applications in respect of orders passed before February 1, 2026, can also be filed until July 31. Appeals against orders communicated on or after May 1, 2026, and departmental applications relating to orders passed on or after February 1, 2026, will continue to be governed by the normal limitation periods prescribed under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
Arrest Under GST Law Need Not Await Tax Adjudication If 'Reason To Believe' Exists: Chennai Court
Case Title : Dr. Obed Ulla A v. State
Case Number : Crl.M.P. No. 5550 of 2026 in R.R. No. 9 of 2026
A Chennai court has recently refused bail to a director of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. in a GST evasion case, holding that authorities need not wait for completion of tax adjudication before making an arrest if they possess sufficient material to form a "reason to believe" that an offence has been committed. Principal Sessions Judge S. Karthikeyan dismissed the bail plea of Dr. Obed Ulla A, who was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on June 12 in connection with an investigation into alleged GST evasion. The court found that the investigation remained at an early stage and that custodial interrogation was still necessary.
CBIC Notifies Rules For Preferential Tariff Benefits Under India-UK CETA Ahead Of 15 July Rollout
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 3 July notified the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between India and the United Kingdom) Rules, 2026, paving the way for implementation of the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) from 15 July. They will come into force on the same day as the trade pact.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has constituted a Working Group to examine a proposal for centralised administration of taxpayers holding multiple Goods and Services Tax (GST) registrations under the same Permanent Account Number (PAN). The proposal covers taxpayers whose GST registrations fall under different Central Tax jurisdictions. The move is aimed at promoting ease of doing business and improving administrative efficiency. It seeks to streamline GST administration for taxpayers with multiple GSTINs registered under different Central Tax jurisdictions.