SUPREME COURT
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) & ORS. VERSUS GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8241 – 8244 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 214
The Supreme Court has recently held that GST liability on online gaming transactions does not depend on whether the underlying game is one of skill or chance, ruling that the levy is attracted by the supply of actionable claims arising from money staked on uncertain outcomes. Games A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the taxable event under the GST framework is the supply of actionable claims generated by staking money on uncertain outcomes and not the underlying game itself. The court accordingly upheld the constitutional validity of the GST levy on such transactions and rejected the contention that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to impose the tax.
Supreme Court Holds Appeals On Excisability Of Goods Lie Before It, Not High Courts
Case Title : M/s Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 8030 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 221
The Supreme Court has recently held that disputes over whether goods are excisable fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and cannot be decided by High Courts. Setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment, the Court observed, "The provisions of Sections 35G and Section 35L, read together, always pointed to one and only one conclusion: that the question of excisability fell within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Tejashva Tractors And Motors Through Its Prop-Sakshi Singh Parmar Versus Union Of India And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2127 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 42
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that the GSTN portal should be refined to allow the filing of additional or supplementary replies online. It also directed that a copy of its order be communicated to GSTN for consideration and compliance. The court noted that notices, replies, and orders are otherwise exchanged through the portal. While dealing with the rejection of Tejashva Tractors And Motors' refund application, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran suggested: “Once such online mode is described as the preferred mode of communication between the revenue authorities/noticee/tax-payers, it would be wholly in the fitness of things that the GSTN Portal may be worked to accommodate filing of additional/supplementary replies also through online mode.”
Wrong Rubber Stamp Below Signature Does Not Invalidate Show Cause Notice: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Dev Trading Company Versus Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2664 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 43
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the use of an incorrect rubber stamp beneath the signature on a show-cause notice does not create a jurisdictional defect. The Court said this would not affect jurisdiction where the authority issuing the notice is otherwise vested with powers under the relevant Act and Rules. Rejecting a jurisdictional challenge raised by Dev Trading Company to a show-cause notice issued under the Health Security se National Security Cess Rules, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed, “Once authority created under the Act read with the Rules does vest in the signatory to the show-cause notice, no material difference or lack of jurisdiction may arise for reason of wrong/other rubber stamp impression affixed below that signature.”
Allahabad High Court Orders Release Of GST Taxpayer Over Arrest Papers Lacking CBIC-DIN
Case Title : Ashish Tyagi v. Director General Of Gst Intelligence And 2 Others
Case Number : HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 509 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 45
The Allahabad High Court has recently directed the release of a GST taxpayer after holding that his arrest and detention were illegal because the grounds of arrest did not bear a CBIC-DIN and the arrest memo failed to disclose the place of arrest. Petitioner Ashish Tyagi was arrested in connection with proceedings under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(f) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 in a case initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad.
Result Of Assessment Proceedings Has Bearing On Criminal Prosecution Under GST: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shakib Qureshi v. Anti Evasion Cgst and 2 others
Case Number : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44278 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 48
The Allahabad High Court on 20 May held that the outcome of assessment proceedings can have a material bearing on criminal prosecution under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan granted bail to Shakib Qureshi and observed that, although criminal prosecution and assessment proceedings are independent, findings in assessment proceedings may affect a criminal case.
Case Title : Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. and another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1423 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 51
The Allahabad High Court has held that a State through which goods merely transit cannot invoke Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to detain goods and levy penalty for the absence of an e-tax invoice where no taxable transaction takes place within that State. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi on 14 May allowed a writ petition filed by Maruti Enterprises and connected matters, holding that the Uttar Pradesh GST authorities lacked jurisdiction to levy penalty because the goods were travelling from West Bengal to Delhi and merely passed through Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title : Runway Impex and another v. Union of India and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2238 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 52
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appellate authority cannot refuse to register an appeal merely because the appellant has not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, holding that the statutory requirement applies only at the stage of "entertaining" the appeal and not at the stage of its filing or registration. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi disposed of a writ petition filed by Runway Impex, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to register the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit at the registration stage and thereafter decide whether to entertain it.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Absence Of Signature On GST Assessment Order Renders It Legally Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 7693/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 43
On 15 June, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned GST assessment order suffers from an inherent legal defect and cannot be sustained in law, reaffirming that statutory orders must bear proper authentication to be enforceable. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the impugned assessment order while allowing the writ petition filed by Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The judges held: “This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.”
Bombay HC
Bombay HC Quashes GST Demand Raised Through Single Notice Covering Multiple Financial Years
Case Title : Rithwik Projects Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4061 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 329
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a GST demand of about ₹2.54 crore raised through a single show cause notice spanning more than four years. The Court held that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav allowed a petition filed by Rithwik Projects Private Limited. The Bench observed that the controversy was already covered by earlier decisions of the Court, particularly Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India.
GST Notice To Amalgamated Company That Ceased To Exist Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 359
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed a GST order against a real estate company. It held that a show cause notice issued after the company had ceased to exist pursuant to its amalgamation was without jurisdiction, making the proceedings that followed legally unsustainable. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed the writ petition filed by Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the GST authorities.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Mega Flex Plastics Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 143
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed Mega Flex Plastics Limited's challenge to a GST ruling that treated its polypropylene leno bags as plastic products rather than textile products. Packaging A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the order of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) and a Single Judge's decision refusing to interfere with it.
Delhi HC
Case Title : PEI Industries & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7725/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 584
The Delhi High Court has held that the closure of proceedings by State GST authorities under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not, by itself, prevent Central GST authorities from proceeding under Section 74 of the Act, observing that the two provisions operate on "altogether different considerations." A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed: "It is apparent that Section 73 and Section 74 of the Act operates in different arenas. The language of said sections, recourse to be taken in regard to said sections, can very well be looked into by its face value."
Customs Cannot Deny Clearance For Goods Imported Before DGFT Notification: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Bright Metal Refiners v. Director General, Directorate General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5551/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 596
The Delhi High Court on 4 June held that import restrictions introduced through a DGFT notification cannot apply to goods imported before the notification acquired legal force upon publication in the e-Official Gazette. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul allowed a writ petition filed by Bright Metal Refiners and directed customs authorities to process and release consignments of platinum alloy jewellery imported from Thailand.
Case Title : GST APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION V/s UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF FINANCE & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C)-8325/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Bar Association, Delhi, challenging the June 30, 2026 deadline for filing appeals before the GSTAT in respect of orders communicated prior to April 1, 2026 and seeking extension of the filing period by at least three months from June 15, 2026, when the e-filing procedure was formally explained to stakeholders. However, the court declined to grant any interim relief at this stage. A vacation bench of Justices Mini Pushkarna and Vinod Kumar observed that it would consider the issue after receiving replies from the respondents. "I am not granting any interim relief. Let them file a reply, we'll see. In case it is to be done, we'll see that," the bench ruled.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Holds DRC-01 Cannot Replace Statutory Show Cause Notice Under GST Act
Case Title : M/s Riyan Enterprises and Anr. v. The State of Assam
Case Number : WP(C)/2258/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 14
The Gauhati High Court on 13 May held that GST authorities under the Assam GST Act cannot initiate and conclude proceedings under Section 73 solely on the basis of a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01, reiterating that issuance of a proper statutory show cause notice is a mandatory precondition for raising a tax demand. Courts & Judiciary Justice Manish Choudhury allowed the petition filed by Riyan Enterprises and set aside the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act for alleged tax liability.
Case Title : MD. Nekib Hussain v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/2789/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 15
The Gauhati High Court on 1 June held that a taxpayer whose GST registration has been cancelled for non-filing of returns can seek restoration of registration by furnishing pending returns and clearing tax dues, interest, penalty and late fees in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. A Bench of Justice Kardak Ete disposed of the petition filed by Md. Nekib Hussain, proprietor of Nekib Hussain, who challenged the cancellation of his GST registration and sought restoration of the same.
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Through Cryptic, Non-Speaking Orders: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Smt. Sunita Rai v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/3165/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 18
The Gauhati High Court has recently set aside an order cancelling a taxpayer's GST registration, holding that an adjudicating authority cannot pass a cryptic and non-speaking order that carries adverse civil consequences. The court observed that even where a taxpayer fails to respond to a show cause notice, the statutory authority remains under an obligation to provide reasons and demonstrate application of mind while cancelling registration. "If an order is passed without giving a proper reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision," observed the bench.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Hilotex International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7706 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 69
The Gujarat High Court on 15 June held that customs authorities cannot withhold imported consignments by retrospectively applying a subsequent interim order and insisting on Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification for goods imported during a period when such certification was not mandatory. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a petition filed by Hilotex International Pvt. Ltd., holding that customs authorities acted arbitrarily in placing imported consignments on hold despite imports having taken place during a BIS-free regime.
Gujarat High Court Restricts Excise Rebate In Coke Exports, Rejects Moisture Loss Claim
Case Title : M/s Mahashakti Coke v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : 2026:GUJHC:38597-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)78
The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 allows rebate only on the quantity of goods actually exported and not on the higher quantity cleared from the factory on payment of excise duty. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Mahashakti Coke, which challenged the denial of rebate on the differential quantity of metallurgical coke.
Gujarat High Court Denies SVLDRS Benefit For Unquantified Tax Liability Before 30 June 2019 Cut-Off
Case Title : Planet Automative Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15507 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)79
The Gujarat High Court on 18 June 2026 held that a taxpayer cannot claim benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) merely on the basis of admitting part of its tax liability during investigation, and that the entire tax liability must be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date of 30 June 2019 for eligibility under the Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Planet Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and another, and upheld the rejection of their declaration under the Scheme.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Canara Bank v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 10234 OF 2020 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 89
The Karnataka High court has held that maintenance of a Minimum Average Balance (MAB) in a bank account is merely a contractual condition and cannot be treated as "consideration" for banking services so as to attract service tax. A bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar quashed show-cause notices issued to Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda (formerly Vijaya Bank), Karnataka Bank and another bank over the proposed levy of service tax on facilities extended to customers maintaining minimum balances in their accounts.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over GST Computation On Non-Tendered Works
Case Title : NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES vs URC CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90
The Karnataka High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and URC Constructions Pvt Ltd. The court held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence while concluding that the value of non-tendered items was ₹9.65 crore exclusive of GST. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha found that invoices and other records on the arbitral record showed that at least some GST was included in the ₹9.65 crore figure. The tribunal had failed to consider that material.
Case Title : Soham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 15316 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 93
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the validity of a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission regulation that requires consumers procuring electricity through Open Access to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS). The court rejected a challenge to the surcharge mechanism, holding that it is consistent with the Electricity Act, the Electricity Rules and the National Tariff Policy. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2025 were framed under powers conferred by the Electricity Act, 2003 and substantially adopt the methodology contemplated under the National Tariff Policy.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Holds Section 16(5) Overrides Section 16(4), Bars ITC Denial For Delayed Returns
Case Title : We Match v. State Tax Officer TPS Circle (Palarivattom) & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 16984 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER)
The Kerala High Court on 19 May held that authorities cannot deny Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a registered taxpayer merely on the ground of delayed filing of returns under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, where the taxpayer satisfies the conditions prescribed under Section 16(5), a subsequent relaxation provision. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed a writ petition filed by We Match and quashed the assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which had disallowed ITC claims for the assessment year 2018–19.
Kerala HC Holds ISD Optional Before 2024 Amendment; Quashes ₹1.31 Cr. GST Demand Against Intertek
Case Title : M/s. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise
Case Number : WP(C) No. 30075 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 92
On 8 June, the Kerala High Court held that, prior to the Finance Act, 2024 amendment to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, companies were not required to distribute input tax credit (ITC) among distinct units through the Input Service Distributor (ISD) mechanism. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed a writ petition filed by Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. and quashed an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act that demanded over Rs.1.31 crore in GST and penalty on allegations of fraud, suppression of facts, and wilful misstatement.
Kerala High Court Quashes GST Notice Issued For Multiple Assessment Years Through Single Proceeding
Case Title : M/s Malabar Trade Links v. Superintendent
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 18343 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 96
On 1 June, the Kerala High Court held that the GST Department cannot issue a composite show-cause notice covering more than one assessment year, as such a notice is legally unsustainable and cannot form the basis of adjudication. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. quashed the show-cause notice and the consequential Order-in-Original issued against Malabar Trade Links, while granting liberty to the GST Department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Property Tax Revision Invalid Without Mandatory Publication Compliance: Kerala High Court
Case Title : P.V. Suresh v. The Haripad Municipality
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 13042 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 111
The Kerala High Court on 2 June quashed enhanced property tax demands issued by the Haripad Municipality, holding that revised property tax rates cannot be enforced without compliance with the mandatory notification and publication requirements prescribed under the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax Services and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was deciding a batch of writ petitions challenging enhanced property tax demands issued in respect of various buildings within the Municipality's jurisdiction.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : SNS Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9413 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 40
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that once the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has been constituted and commenced functioning, parties should ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the Tribunal rather than invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed a writ petition filed by SNS Minerals Pvt. Ltd. challenging an appellate order that had set aside a GST refund of ₹84.26 lakh granted to the company, while granting it liberty to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Case Title : Gujral Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Indraneel Singh Gujral vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 27879 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 43
The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a private company operating a tourism corporation-owned motel for commercial purposes is liable to pay property tax and other charges and cannot claim exemption from property tax on the ground that the property belongs to the State. The court, however, ruled that the operator could not be made liable for any period before it entered into the agreement to run the motel.
Madras HC
Case Title : KPR Enterprises v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.Nos.35453/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 151
The Madras High Court has upheld GST proceedings against a quarry operator. It held that a mismatch between seigniorage fees paid for mineral extraction and the value of outward supplies reported in GST returns was sufficient to justify the tax department's prima facie view that turnover had been suppressed. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed writ petitions filed by KPR Enterprises for the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 tax periods.
GST Proceedings Maintainable Against Heirs Even Without Action During Taxpayer's Lifetime: Madras HC
Case Title : V. Damayanti v. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.10000 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 155
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 16 June held that Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits GST authorities to initiate proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer even if no proceedings were initiated during the taxpayer's lifetime. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a writ petition filed by V. Damayanti, wife of the late V. Vasudevan, proprietor of Vasu Chemicals, challenging proceedings initiated after Vasudevan's death.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules PLC Not Separately Taxable, Sets Aside DLF Advance Ruling Orders
Case Title : DLF Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and others
Case Number : CWP No. 17530 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 28
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13 May held that Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected by developers for offering a preferred location within a housing project form part of the composite construction service and cannot attract separate taxation. Courts & Judiciary A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Lapita Banerji allowed a writ petition filed by DLF Limited and quashed the Advance Ruling Authority order dated 28 August 2020 and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling order dated 28 March 2022, finding both inconsistent with the subsequent GST Council recommendation and the Government of India clarification.
Rajasthan HC
BOT Concessionaire Liable To Pay GST On Toll Rights Received As Consideration: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : CG Tollway Ltd v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15048/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 25
The Rajasthan High Court on 22 May held that toll collection rights granted under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) concession agreement constitute consideration for taxable works contract services and are not exempt from GST merely because toll collection itself enjoys exemption. Legal A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah dismissed a writ petition filed by CG Tollway Ltd challenging orders of the GST authorities that had demanded Rs. 16.36 GST, interest and penalty on services rendered under a concession agreement with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
Telangana HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs v. M/s Zoom Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : C.E.A No.10 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 35
The Telangana High Court has held that disputes involving whether a transaction constitutes a “sale of goods” or a “service” raise questions of taxability and are not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as such issues lie within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs against Zoom Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Uttarakhand HC
Uttarakhand HC Quashes GST Demand, Says Portal-Only Service Invalid After Registration Cancellation
Case Title : Vandana Distributers v. Commissioner of the State GST & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 401 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT)9
The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer's GST registration has already been cancelled, service of a Show Cause Notice and adjudication order solely through the GST portal cannot be treated as valid service under the GST law. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that once registration stands cancelled, a taxpayer cannot be expected to continuously monitor the GST portal for notices and orders.
CESTAT
Individual Villas In Gated Communities Not Residential Complexes For Service Tax: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Green Avenue Homes & Gardens v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40870/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHN) 308
A gated community comprising individual villas on separate plots does not become a "residential complex" for service tax purposes merely because it has a common project identity and shared amenities, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held.Economics A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar passed the ruling while allowing the appeal filed by Green Avenue Homes & Gardens and setting aside a service tax demand of ₹4.04 crore, along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Upholds Classification of AKD Wax Imported by Arjun Chemicals as Wax Product
Case Title : Nippon Sea Freight Systems v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40130 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 309
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the Customs Department's classification of Alkyl Ketene Dimer (AKD Wax) imported by Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. under the tariff entry applicable to wax products. Chemicals Industry However, the Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not invoke the extended limitation period because they had accepted the importer's classification of the product for several years. It therefore restricted recovery of differential duty to the normal period.
Case Title : Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50378 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 310
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside the confiscation of imported capital goods and the levy of interest and penalty imposed on Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. The tribunal found that the company could not fulfill its export obligation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme because the imported goods and hotel premises were auctioned by lenders. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that “the export obligation could not be met because the goods imported and the premises of the hotel were auctioned.”
Case Title : Shree Karthik Papers Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number : Central Sales Tax Appeal No. 05 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 311
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that paper products transferred by Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. to agents in Karnataka, Kerala, Odisha, and West Bengal after August 1, 1995 were consignment sales and not inter-State sales. The tribunal set aside a Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal order that had restored assessment on a turnover of ₹1.51 crore by treating the transactions as inter-State sales.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. Mr. S. Murugan
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41158 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 314
On 2 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that authorities may penalise a customs broker for failing to exercise proper supervision and due diligence, but cannot revoke a customs broker licence in the absence of evidence showing deliberate involvement in fraud. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., while hearing appeals arising from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into alleged fraudulent drawback exports carried out through dummy firms, upheld the forfeiture of the customs broker's security deposit but declined to interfere with the Commissioner's decision not to revoke the licence.
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹70 Lakh Penalties In Cigarette Smuggling, Faults DRI For Incomplete Investigation
Case Title : Shri B.A. Suresh Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40678 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 312
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that a penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without identifying and establishing the liability of the actual importer. Judicial Member P. Dinesha set aside the penalties of Rs.35 lakh each, imposed on B.A. Suresh Kumar, proprietor of Arunachalam Shipping, and C. Solomon Selvaraj, proprietor of Thivya Agencies in an alleged cigarette smuggling case after finding that the Revenue had conducted a one-sided and incomplete investigation.
Customs Cannot Deny FTA Benefits By Unilaterally Discarding Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Veekay Diamants v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41873 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 313
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that Customs authorities cannot unilaterally reject a valid Certificate of Origin (CoO) issued by a foreign authority and recompute local value-added content (LVAC) using a methodology not prescribed under law. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that authorities cannot deny preferential tariff benefits under a free trade agreement by bypassing the Rules of Origin and the verification procedure prescribed therein and set aside a customs duty demand of Rs.5.68 lakh and penalties imposed on a Mumbai-based importer.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Sub-Contractor Not An Independent GTA, Sets Aside ₹90 Lakh Service Tax Demand
Case Title : M/s. Vinoth Shipping Services v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42065 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 315
On 2 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a service tax demand of Rs.90.26 lakh against Vinoth Shipping Services, holding that a sub-contractor who only arranges transportation for a principal contractor cannot be treated as an independent Goods Transport Agency (GTA) liable to tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal and quashed the demand, interest, and penalties, finding that the appellant only acted as a facilitator for its principal contractor, Aspinwall & Co. Pvt. Ltd., which had already paid service tax on the transportation services.
CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Duty Exemption On Edible-Grade Oils Imported For Cosmetic, Pharmaceutical Use
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import), NS-I v. Pioma Chemicals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87686 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 316
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed a Revenue appeal challenging customs duty exemption granted to Pioma Chemicals on imports of refined peanut oil, sunflower oil, walnut oil, almond oil and macadamia nut oil. The tribunal held that the benefit could not be denied on the ground that the oils were intended for use in cosmetic and pharmaceutical products. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the exemption benefit to the importer.
Case Title : National Highways Authority of India v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21482 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 317
On 2 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that consideration received by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) from contractors for transferring toll collection rights constitutes a taxable service and does not qualify as a sovereign function. Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi dismissed three appeals filed by NHAI challenging service tax demands, interest, and penalties arising from agreements granting toll collection rights at various toll plazas in Andhra Pradesh.
CESTAT New Delhi Rejects CENVAT Credit Denial For Invoice Defects, Allows Jayaswal NECO Appeal
Case Title : Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 55196 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 318
On 2 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that authorities cannot deny CENVAT credit merely on the basis of procedural defects in invoices when the recipient has actually received and used the services in its business operations. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed the appeal filed by Jayaswal NECO Industries Ltd. and set aside the denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 53.94 lakh. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's appeal against the grant of credit of Rs. 67.50 lakh.
Case Title : M/s. Rajan Jhiriwal v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51464 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 319
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 June held that the Department cannot reclassify a product after consistently accepting its classification for several years through departmental orders, and consequently set aside an excise duty demand arising from such reclassification. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed appeals filed by Rajasthan-based manufacturer Rajan Jhiriwal and its partners, and set aside the adjudication order confirming central excise duty, interest and penalties.
Demurrage Paid To Foreign Vessel Owners Not Taxable As Port Service: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 22362 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 321
On 3 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that demurrage charges paid by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) to foreign vessel owners for delays in loading or unloading cargo cannot attract service tax because such charges are contractual payments connected with transportation of goods and not consideration for any taxable service. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed RINL's appeals and set aside the service tax demands on demurrage charges, dispatch money and consulting engineering services.
No Service Tax Under RCM On Railway Space Licence Fees For Ads: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST v. M/s Prakash Arts Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30179 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 322
On 3 June, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be demanded under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) from Prakash Arts Pvt. Ltd. for licence fees paid to Railways for use of space to display advertisements, as the arrangement amounted to renting of immovable property and not “support service”. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original in favour of the taxpayer.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside ₹1.44 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Bharti Gems, PP Jewellers
Case Title : M/s P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51904 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 323
On 3 June, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a customs duty demand of Rs.1.44 crore, along with confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Bharti Gems, Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. and related parties, holding that the Customs Department failed to prove diversion of duty-free imported gold and silver or any fraudulent export activity. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed all seven appeals and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur.
Case Title : Devinder Pramod v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 128 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 324
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a redemption fine imposed in connection with the export of ketamine to China after holding that the goods had already been exported and were no longer available for confiscation. Technical Member Rajeev Tandon partly allowed the appeal. He, however, upheld the appellant's liability for his role in the export operation and reduced the penalty imposed on him to ₹5 lakh. The Tribunal held, “The fact that they are not being available for confiscation is, therefore, imperative. To this extent, the fine imposed would not be sustainable in the first place.”
Procedural Defects In Invoices Cannot Defeat SAD Refund Entitlement: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Cape Electric Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40308 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 325
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed an appeal filed by Cape Electric Corporation and set aside orders rejecting Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund claims of ₹18.82 lakh. The claims arose from imported goods that were subsequently sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the department could not deny the refund claims on the basis of reconstructed invoice copies. The original refund records had been misplaced by the department, and the importer had been directed to reconstruct the file.
Case Title : M/s. NEPC Agro Foods Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42197 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 326
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that a tea estate lease arrangement undertaken for plantation activities could not be artificially split and taxed under different service categories. The tribunal found that the arrangement constituted a composite agricultural transaction. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed two appeals filed by NEPC Agro Foods Limited. The Bench set aside service tax demands raised for the period from November 2009 to June 2017.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹37.74 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels
Case Title : Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40382 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 328
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹37.74 lakh raised against Apeejay Surendra Park Hotels Ltd. It held that the hotel chain was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on specified common input services while also claiming the benefit of abatement under the applicable service tax notification. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by the company. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Remuneration Paid To Thriveni Earth Movers Directors Not Service Taxable
Case Title : Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40807 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 329
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside service tax demands raised on remuneration paid by Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. to its whole-time directors. The tribunal held that such remuneration could not be subjected to service tax because the directors were working in an employer-employee relationship with the company. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the company's appeals against a common order. The order had confirmed service tax demands, interest and penalties on directors' remuneration for the period from April 2014 to June 2017.
Case Title : Magic Mike Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51365 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 327
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside a customs duty demand of ₹1.14 crore against Magic Mike Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the company was entitled to an exemption under a 2005 customs notification for certain printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs), as the imported goods were not used to manufacture the categories of telecom and networking products excluded from the exemption.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Goods Transport by Road Without Consignment Note Not Taxable GTA Service
Case Title : Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27014 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 346
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 5 June set aside a service tax demand against Best Road Carriers after holding that mere transportation of goods by road, without issuing a consignment note or providing ancillary services, does not amount to a taxable Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held: “Since under GTA it is only such of these services which are in relation to transport of goods by road which are taxable and not the actual transport of goods by road itself. And that appellant has not rendered any service in relation to transport of goods by road like loading / unloading nor even for reimbursing for damage and not issuing the consignment note except mere transport of Goods by road…”
CESTAT New Delhi Allows CENVAT Credit On Ore Crushing Services Used In Manufacturing Process
Case Title : M/s. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Godawari Power & Ispat
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 331
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 5 June 2026 held that services used for crushing mined iron ore and removing unwanted material before the ore reaches the factory qualify as “input services” for CENVAT credit, as they directly connect with the manufacturing process. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. and set aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Department.
CESTAT Mumbai Bars Customs From Rejecting Declared Value, Upholds Relief For Adani Entities
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) v. M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86116 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 332
On 5 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value of imported goods when they rely on allegations of overvaluation arising from the same Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation and evidence that earlier proceedings had already rejected and the Supreme Court had affirmed. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed six appeals filed by the Customs Department and upheld the order that dropped proceedings against Adani Group entities.
Case Title : Grafica Flextronica Vs Commissioner of GST & CE, Palghar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86211 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 333
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 June held that CENVAT credit on duty-paid goods returned to a factory cannot be denied merely because the re-manufactured machine was supplied to a different customer and not to the buyer who had originally returned the goods. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati allowed the appeal filed by Grafica Flextronica and set aside a demand of Rs. 23.40 lakh along with interest and penalty.
Construction of Educational Institutions Not Taxable Before 1 July 2012: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s. R.R. Thulasi Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.41959 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 334
On 8 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that works contract services used for construction of educational institutions were not liable to service tax during the relevant period prior to 1 July 2012, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the non-levy. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. decided the appeal filed by the Department against R.R. Thulasi Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd.
CESTAT Allows SPI Technologies' ₹2.47 Crore Refund On Export Services Despite CENVAT Reversal
Case Title : SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.40989 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 335
On 8 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of services cannot be denied merely because CENVAT credit was initially availed and later reversed, or due to procedural lapses such as delayed filing of declarations. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., a Software Technology Park of India (STPI) unit engaged in exporting IT-enabled services.
Customs Cannot Reclassify Dolomite as Marble Based on Other Importers' Test Reports: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Sampat Ostwal & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86354 and 86355 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 336
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 June held that customs authorities cannot reclassify imported goods as marble blocks by relying on test reports of consignments imported by other entities when laboratory reports of the importer's own goods classify them as dolomite. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeals filed by Shri Parasnath Exports and its partner Sampat Ostwal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
SIPCOT Water Infrastructure Charges Exempt From Service Tax Under Section 104: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41395 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 337
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the one-time amount collected by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT) from industrial allottees towards water supply infrastructure is exempt from Service Tax under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed SIPCOT's appeal and set aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Department.
Case Title : GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41944 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 338
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a freight forwarder's mark-up or profit on ocean freight charges cannot be subjected to service tax merely because the amount collected from customers exceeds the freight actually paid to shipping lines. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the company.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds CENVAT Credit Does Not Lapse If Other Dutiable Final Products Continue
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Alwar v. M/s Sharp Menthol India Ltd.
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL No. 51552 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 338
On 18 May, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that CENVAT credit lying in balance does not lapse merely because some final products become exempt from excise duty, as long as other final products manufactured from the same inputs continue to attract duty. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed three Departmental appeals and upheld the order dropping demands exceeding Rs.22.88 crore against Sharp Menthol India Ltd., arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of CENVAT credit between March 2008 and September 2010.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Continued Suspension Of Nhava Sheva CFS, Notes No Inquiry Was Initiated
Case Title : International Cargo Terminal Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85943 of 2026 Customs Appeal No. 85820 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 339
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has set aside an order continuing the suspension of a Container Freight Station (CFS) operated by International Cargo Terminal Private Limited (ICTPL) at Nhava Sheva. The tribunal held that Customs authorities had not substantiated the grounds for continuing the immediate suspension. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed: "In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 05.05.2026 of the learned Commissioner of Customs for having continued suspension beyond a reasonable period, without having substantiated the grounds for invoking immediate suspension under Regulation 11 ibid."
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Service Tax Demand On Proprietorship, Rejects Liability For Erstwhile Firm
Case Title : Space Associates v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.42364 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 340
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Department cannot fasten service tax liability on a proprietorship concern for dues arising from an erstwhile partnership firm without establishing any transfer, amalgamation, or successor liability. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar reiterated that composite works contracts executed prior to 1 June 2007 cannot be subjected to service tax under the then-prevailing legal framework and allowed the appeal filed by Space Associates against interest and penalty confirmed against it for the period April 2006 to June 2007.
Case Title : Precision Equipments Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41459 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 341
On 9 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that authorities cannot invoke the extended period of limitation under service tax law when a dispute arises from a CERA audit objection and the Department itself contests the audit findings, as such circumstances indicate an interpretational issue rather than suppression of facts by Precision Equipments Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Precision Equipments and set aside the service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service for the period from September 2004 to March 2006.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Rejection Of BPL Telecom's VCES Declaration As Notice Was Delayed
Case Title : BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40526 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 342
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the rejection of a Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) declaration filed by BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal found that the notice proposing rejection was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. It also found that the departmental correspondence relied upon by the Revenue was merely general in nature.
CESTAT Mumbai Grants Customs Exemption On Re-Imported Buffalo Meat, Quashes ₹45.82 Crore Demand
Case Title : Allanasons Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87690 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 343
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of ₹45.82 crore, a redemption fine of ₹6 crore and penalties imposed on a Mumbai-based exporter of frozen buffalo meat. The case concerned the re-import of meat that had earlier been exported and was subsequently brought back into India before being processed and re-exported. A Bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that Allanasons Private Limited had established the linkage between the goods originally exported, later re-imported, and subsequently re-exported after processing. The Bench held that the company was entitled to the customs duty exemption claimed on the re-imported goods.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Duty Demand Over Inadmissible Electronic Evidence
Case Title : Suraj Impex v. Commissioner of Customs & Connected Matters
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40037 of 2021 (M/s Suraj Impex) Customs Appeal No. 40038 of 2021 (M/s Spark Lites) Customs Appeal No. 40040 of 2021 (Shri Rajesh Jain)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE)344
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside customs duty demands of over ₹11.24 crore raised against importers of lighting fixtures and allied goods from China. The tribunal found that the Revenue's allegation of undervaluation rested on unverified electronic data and uncorroborated statements. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed appeals filed by Suraj Impex, Spark Lites and Shri Rajesh Jain against an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai.
ONGC Rebutted Unjust Enrichment Presumption, Entitled To ₹4.42 Crore OID Cess Refund: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41097 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 345
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently, in a case involcing ONGC held that the statutory presumption that duty incidence has been passed on stands rebutted where contractual documents, invoices, and independent certifications establish that the burden of duty was not passed on to the buyer. The ruling came while allowing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s (ONGC) refund claim of ₹4.42 crore towards excess Oil Industry Development Cess (OID Cess).
Immovability Of Plant Does Not Bar CENVAT Credit On Duty-Paid Machinery: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : ITC Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 27150 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBizCESTAT(HYD) 347
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 June held that manufacturers can avail CENVAT credit on duty-paid machinery, components and equipment used to set up an integrated plant even if the completed plant becomes immovable property. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed ITC Ltd.'s appeal, observing that ownership of the goods and their attachment to earth do not determine eligibility for credit and set aside a demand of Rs. 1.89 crore along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Bars Vivisection Of Turnkey Project, Allows CENVAT Credit To L&T
Case Title : Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27014 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 346
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 June held that authorities cannot artificially dissect an integrated turnkey project to deny CENVAT credit, and that the substance of the contractual arrangement must prevail over isolated treatment of individual components. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeal filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) and set aside a demand of Rs. 2.22 crore along with interest and penalty.
Case Title : J.K. Engicon Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna connected with M/s J.K. & BSECPL (JV) v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 75393 of 2024 and 75451 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 348
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside service tax demands of about ₹19.26 lakh raised under the reverse charge mechanism against two road and bridge contractors. The tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that they had obtained any mining rights or paid royalty pursuant to a mining licence. The decision was delivered by Judicial Member R. Muralidhar, who allowed the appeals filed by J.K. Engicon Private Limited and J.K. & BSECPL (JV).
Late Fee On Supplementary Bills Of Entry Cannot Be Imposed In A Routine Manner: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Bhubaneswar
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76044 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 350
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Kolkata has recently observed that late fees for delayed filing of Bills of Entry must not be imposed routinely where the delay is not attributable to the importer. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon set aside late fees levied on Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. in six appeals arising from supplementary Bills of Entry filed for excess quantities of imported coal.
Case Title : Heena Tours & Travels v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 87868 and 88604 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 351
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that no service tax was payable on tour operator services rendered entirely in Jammu & Kashmir during the period from October 2005 to September 2010. It held that the service tax law in force at the time did not extend to the State. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Heena Tours & Travels. The Bench also dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest On Delayed Refund Of Extra Duty Deposit Collected During SVB Probe
Case Title : Vardhman Acrylics Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 87862 and 87864 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 352
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vardhman Acrylics Limited is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) collected during a Special Valuation Branch (SVB) investigation. The tribunal ruled that interest became payable because the refund was not granted within the prescribed period after the amount became refundable. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the company's appeals. It set aside orders denying interest on the refund. The tribunal observed that EDD, though in the nature of a deposit and not customs duty, becomes refundable when no differential duty is found payable after completion of the valuation exercise.
Case Title : M/s TIL Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75313 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 353
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has held that an earthmoving equipment manufacturer and lessor was not liable to pay service tax on equipment rental transactions. The Tribunal held that possession and effective control of the equipment had been transferred to customers and that VAT had been paid on the transactions. The ruling was delivered by a Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan while allowing the appeal filed by TIL Ltd. The appeal challenged an order confirming a service tax demand of ₹2.10 crore and an equal penalty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Bars Sugar Cess On Exported Sugar, Sets Aside ₹77.5 Lakh Demand
Case Title : Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 12581 of 2019- DB
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 354
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 June held that authorities cannot levy sugar cess on sugar exported outside India, observing that statutory notifications expressly exempt exported sugar from such levy. Summaries Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeal filed by Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and set aside the demand of Rs.77.50 lakh along with interest and penalty. The Bench held: “sugar cess was exempt for that quantity of sugar which is produced in India but exported out of country”.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹14.59 Crore Service Tax Demand Against Bihar State Sugar Corporation
Case Title : Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75865 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 355
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹14.59 crore against Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited. It held that a show cause notice issued before the insertion of Section 73(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could not sustain a demand for the normal period after the extended limitation period was found inapplicable. “Accordingly, we hold that in the present case, the demand even for the normal period does not sustain,” the tribunal held.
No Service Tax On Pal Promoters' Construction For Police Housing, Tsunami Rehab: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.41810 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 356
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 June held that construction services provided to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation (TNHPCL), Tsunami District Implementation Unit, Pudukkotai (TDIU), and Peoples Development Association (PDA) do not attract service tax, as the projects do not constitute commercial construction activity. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed appeals filed by Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director P. Panneerselvam against service tax demands for the period 2007–2012.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Service Tax Demands Against Indian Bank On Limitation Ground
Case Title : Indian Bank v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41179 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 357
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, granted relief to Indian Bank and held that where transactions are duly recorded in statutory books, and there is no evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao while allowing appeals filed by Indian Bank against service tax demands raised on various issues including turnover commission, arrangement charges, foreign exchange income, CENVAT credit reversals, and credit availment.
Case Title : Integral Coach Factory v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40732 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 358
On 18 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that refund of excess excise duty cannot be denied merely because invoices did not mention batch numbers, where the taxpayer establishes correlation through batch-costing records and contemporaneous documents. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by Integral Coach Factory (ICF) against the Commissioner of Central Excise, holding that procedural lapses could not defeat substantive entitlement and remanded the matter for limited verification of quantification, limitation, and record correlation.
DGFT Public Notice Cannot Impose Actual User Condition On Transferable DFIA Imports: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Global Exim v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75348 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 359
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has held that an actual user condition imposed through a DGFT public notice cannot be enforced against imports made under a transferable Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA). The tribunal ruled that the DFIA in question had been issued on a post-export basis. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that the condition was not binding on Global Exim, which had claimed exemption from basic customs duty on imports made under a transferable DFIA.
Case Title : Libra Business Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 77079 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 360
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit on tippers cannot be denied merely because the vehicles were received before tippers were brought within the definition of capital goods. The tribunal observed that eligibility for credit must be examined when the vehicles are put to use for rendering output services. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed an appeal filed by Libra Business Private Limited. It set aside a demand of about ₹1.04 crore along with interest. The bench also dropped the penalty imposed on the company.
Case Title : General Agencies (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76208 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 361
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Kolkata has set aside ₹40 lakh in penalties imposed on a Kolkata-based importer of kerosene generator sets. The tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued long after the goods had been cleared and sold in the market. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon noted that even if the imports were assumed to have resulted in the clearance of polluting generator sets, issuing a show cause notice after the goods had entered the market would not address the alleged environmental concern.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Confiscation Of 3.65 Kg Gold After Jeweller Produces GST, Purchase Records
Case Title : Shri Akhil Maheshwari v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75149 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 362
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the confiscation of more than 3.65 kg of gold claimed by a Meerut jeweller. The tribunal held that records produced by the claimants showed the gold had been procured on payment of GST and accounted for in the firm's books. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed appeals filed by Akhil Maheshwari, Anil Kumar Yadav and Nikhil Maheshwari. The bench also directed the release of the gold and set aside the penalties imposed on them.
Case Title : T.D. Shibu v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and CGST - Raipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55488 of 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 363
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a service tax demand as well as interest against a taxpayer engaged in providing works contract services. It found that the taxpayer did not make the payment required under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 within the prescribed timeline and was therefore not eligible for its benefits. This is despite the fact that the deadline had been extended until June 30, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, however, set aside the penalty imposed on T.D. Shibu. The tribunal noted that the delay occurred during the pandemic and that there was no indication of mala fide intent.
CESTAT Hyderabad Remands Excise Duty Dispute After Retrospective Relief
Case Title : Srinivasa Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Hyderabad - III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 23278 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 364
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has remanded an excise duty dispute involving supplies made to Indian Railways for fresh adjudication after finding that a retrospective exemption introduced through the Finance Act, 2015 could affect the basis on which the demand was confirmed. A coram of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed that the exemption covered the same period involved in the dispute. The tribunal therefore held that the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied Over Wrong Registration Code After Payment: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Purushottam Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag 14 v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-I
Case Number : 2SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 10122 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 365
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has held that "technical book keeping errors" cannot defeat a refund claim where the money has already reached the government exchequer. The tribunal directed the department to refund ₹71.55 lakh to a Surat housing society after finding that the Revenue had treated the residential complex as a single entity while raising the service tax demand but sought to treat it as separate entities while considering the refund.
Case Title : Baxter (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V), Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87685 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 366
On 23 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with kidney dialysis machines are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018 and attract 12% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), and not 18% IGST under the residual tariff entry CTH 9033. Technical Member M.M. Parthiban and Judicial Member Ajay Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Baxter (India) Private Limited and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
Industrial Promotion Subsidy Cannot Be Added To Excise Assessable Value: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Responsive Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Palghar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87049 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 367
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently ruled that the Industrial Promotion Subsidy received by a taxpayer under the Maharashtra government's industrial incentive scheme cannot be added to the assessable value of goods for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty. A coram of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that the subsidy was a state incentive linked to eligible capital investment and regional industrial development. It was not consideration flowing directly or indirectly from buyers.
Customs Cannot Reassess Export Shipping Bills Or Deny DEPB Benefits After Export: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mungad Strips & Alloy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and M/s Jiji Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 50455 and 50456 of 2021
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 368
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that Customs authorities cannot alter the value or description of goods after shipping bills have been assessed and exports completed. Any such change must be made through the statutory remedies available under the Customs Act. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao passed the ruling while allowing appeals filed by Mungad Strips & Alloy Pvt. Ltd. and Jiji Industries Ltd. against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Indore.
Customs Must Follow Valuation Rules Sequentially Before Using Residual Method: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rochees Time Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 210, 213 and 214 of 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 369
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has held that customs authorities cannot invoke the residual method of valuation without first ruling out the valuation methods that precede it under the Customs Valuation Rules. The ruling resulted in most of the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties imposed on Rochees Time Pvt. Ltd. being set aside. A coram comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed Rochees Time Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal.
Case Title : New Mangalore Port Trust v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2012
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 370
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the balance service tax demand raised against New Mangalore Port Trust on lease and licence fees collected from users of vacant land for the period prior to July 1, 2010. A coram of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by the port trust. “In view of the above, we do not find any justification in sustaining the demand prior to 01.07.2010.”
Tax Department Cannot Dictate CENVAT Credit Compliance Method: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50844 of 2019
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 371
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that tax authorities cannot compel a taxpayer to adopt a particular method of complying with its obligations under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Setting aside the CENVAT credit and service tax demands, along with the interest and penalties, the tribunal ruled that the choice of compliance rests with the taxpayer. A bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata v. Allahabad Bank
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75720 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 372
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the dropping of a service tax demand of nearly ₹20 crore against Allahabad Bank. It held that the bank had paid the service tax before availing CENVAT credit, even though the corresponding invoices were issued later. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan dismissed the Revenue's appeal after examining the invoices and remittance records.
Astronomy Coaching Not Exempt As 'Culture' Under Mega Exemption Notification: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Space Technology and Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52883 of 2019
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 373
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June held that coaching and training services in astronomy do not fall within the expression "culture" under the Mega Exemption Notification and are therefore liable to service tax. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Space Technology and Education Pvt. Ltd., while directing the Department to recalculate the company's tax liability after extending the benefit of cum-tax valuation under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
HSN Mismatch In Certificate Of Origin Alone Cannot Deny Customs Exemption: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Suraj Constructions v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40755 of 2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 375
On 25 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a discrepancy in the HSN classification mentioned in a Certificate of Origin cannot, by itself, justify denial of a customs exemption when the imported goods are otherwise correctly classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of Rs.14.50 lakh against the importer of Clear Float Glass, along with the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalties and interest.
Voyage Charter Agreements Not Taxable As Supply Of Tangible Goods Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Vedanta Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41995 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 374
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June set aside a service tax demand of Rs.2.42 crore against Vedanta Ltd., holding that voyage charter agreements entered into for transportation of goods cannot be classified as "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use Service" under the Finance Act, 1994, as they are contracts for carriage of goods and do not involve transfer of possession or effective control of vessels. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed Vedanta's appeal against the Order-in-Original confirming a service tax demand of Rs.2,42,70,786, along with interest and penalties, including penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Kolkata Says Customs Supervision Charges Payable On MOT, Not CRC, For Limited Deployment
Case Title : Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75948 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 376
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹1.37 crore demand raised against a duty-free shop operator. A coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that customs supervision charges could only be recovered on a Merchant Over Time (MOT) basis and not on a Cost Recovery Charges (CRC) basis where customs officers were utilized only for limited hours. It held that the Revenue could not demand CRC in the absence of evidence showing that customs officers had been deployed throughout the day or for the better part thereof.
Case Title : Rochi Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 231 of 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 377
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has reduced a customs duty demand against Jaipur-based watch manufacturer Rochi Ram & Sons from about ₹5.53 crore to ₹7.9 lakh. It held that Customs authorities did not follow the valuation procedure prescribed under the Customs Valuation Rules after rejecting the declared import values. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that Customs authorities were justified in rejecting the declared transaction values.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Construction Of Roads Inside Krishi Upaj Mandi Eligible For Service Tax Exemption
Case Title : Maturam Construction company v. The Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52462 of 2022
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 378
Construction of roads within the premises of a Krishi Upaj Mandi is eligible for service tax exemption, while works such as auction platform coverings, boundary walls, check posts and an approach gate are not, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled in a dispute involving a Rajasthan contractor. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao held that roads inside a Krishi Upaj Mandi are meant for use by farmers, traders and the general public. It, however, found that auction platforms and other market structures cannot be treated as post-harvest storage infrastructure.
Case Title : M/s. Gem Granites v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 26961 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 379
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an order denying customs and central excise duty exemptions to Gem Granites. It held that, in the facts of the case, imported capital goods used in quarry operations qualified for the exemption because the granite blocks extracted from the quarry were the basic raw material used to manufacture the export products.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs(Export), Nhava Sheva v. Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86911 of 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 380
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that glucometers are classifiable as instruments for chemical analysis and not as medical diagnostic instruments for customs purposes. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order in favour of Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal dismissed the Customs Department's appeal. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M. M. Parthiban examined the scientific functioning of a glucometer and observed that its analytical function warranted classification under the tariff heading for instruments used for chemical analysis.
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. i-Grandee Software Technologies (P) Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41727 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 381
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed the Service Tax Department's appeal seeking enhancement of penalty against i-Grandee Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It held that the dispute primarily arose from the adjustment of tax paid under different taxable categories and found no reason to interfere with the original order. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed, "the adjudicating authority has correctly appreciated the factual and legal position in holding that the dispute substantially arose on account of adjustment of excess tax already paid under a different taxable category and that no revenue loss had occurred."
Case Title : M/s Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70111 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 382
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June held that excess amounts deposited under protest during provisional assessment cannot be treated as “duty” and remain revenue deposits until a duty liability is adjudicated. Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary allowed an appeal filed by Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Department to recalculate interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until 11 March 2024, after adjusting the interest already paid.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹90,625 Service Tax Demand Over Time-Barred Show Cause Notice
Case Title : M/s Thakkers Harmony v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86718 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 383
On 25 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a show cause notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period was invalid, and accordingly set aside a service tax demand of Rs 90,625 raised against the appellant. Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati allowed the appeal filed by Thakkers Harmony and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Nashik, which had upheld the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
Case Title : N. C. Vision v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70039 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 384
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed an appeal filed by a cable services provider after finding that it had acted under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable in its case. The tribunal set aside the service tax demand and held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the circumstances. The single-member tribunal of Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary observed, "The Appellant has acted throughout in a bona fide manner and was under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable in the present case. Hence, the present issue relates to interpretation of complex legal provisions rather than intent to evade tax. Thus, the invocation of extended limitation period in the impugned order is unwarranted."
CESTAT Chennai Deletes ₹10.26 Lakh Service Tax Demand On Mayajaal Over Revenue-Sharing Model
Case Title : Tvl. Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41662 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 385
On 29 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that amounts retained by Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. under revenue-sharing arrangements with restaurant and retail operators are not liable to service tax as Business Support Service. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by Tvl. Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. Following its earlier decision in the company's own case, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 10.26 lakh raised for a subsequent period, holding: “The arrangement between the appellant and the occupier are purely on revenue sharing basis, hence, would not fall under the scope of Business Support Service.”
CESTAT Chennai Says ELFA Diagnostic Kits Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption Available To ELISA Kits
Case Title : Biomerieux India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Audit)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40106 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 386
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that diagnostic kits based on Enzyme-Linked Fluorescent Assay (ELFA) are entitled to the concessional customs duty exemption available to Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) kits. It ruled that ELFA is not a distinct diagnostic methodology but a technologically advanced application of ELISA. These diagnostic kits are used for medical tests, including the detection of infectious diseases, viral infections, hormonal disorders and other health conditions.
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. CGST & Central Excise, Ahmedabad South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 10823 of 2015 and 11435 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 387
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demands of over ₹51 lakh raised against Central Warehousing Corporation. The tribunal held that the Revenue could not levy service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category by splitting a composite handling and transportation (H&T) contract. A bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeals.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Rules Yoga Camps Conducted By Banaskantha-Based Charitable Trust Exempt From GST
Case Title : In Re Sanskar Foundation
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/22
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that yoga camps conducted by Sanskar Foundation qualify as charitable activities and are exempt from GST. It observed that the advancement of religion, spirituality, or yoga falls within the scope of the exemption available to eligible charitable entities. The exemption, however, is subject to the applicant holding a valid registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat AAR Rules Compensation Recovered From Transporters For Transit Losses Not Liable To GSR
Case Title : In Re Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/23
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that compensation recovered by a business from transporters for injury, loss or damage suffered during the transportation of goods is not liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). It held that such recoveries compensate the business for the injury, loss or damage suffered and are not consideration for a taxable supply. The ruling was delivered by a two-member bench comprising CGST Member Sushma and SGST Member Vishal Malani on an application filed by Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited.
GSTAT
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. ASR Cinema LLP
Case Number : NAPA/23/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 24
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 May held that permission granted by State authorities or the Telangana High Court to collect proposed ticket fares cannot override the statutory obligation under Section 171 of the CGST Act to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction to consumers through a commensurate reduction in prices. A Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad dismissed the appeal filed by ASR Cinema LLP and affirmed the profiteering findings recorded by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP).
The Committee constituted by the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has recommended that appellants should not be required to file certified copies of orders that are already uploaded on the common GST portal. The proposal forms part of a wider set of suggested changes to the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. The recommendation was among several suggestions considered by the committee after examining representations received from trade bodies, bar associations, and industry stakeholders.
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM
Case Number : NAPA/25/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 25
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a finding against Hyderabad-based Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM that it profiteered by nearly ₹9 lakh after a GST rate cut on certain cinema tickets. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain rejected the cinema hall's objections and accepted the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) According to the authority, the cinema hall profiteered ₹8.99 lakh for the period between January 1 and June 30, 2019.
Other Developments
Centre Mandates DGFT Import Authorisation For Specified Silver Imports
The Central Government has tightened import policy conditions for specified silver products by mandating that imports of such items be backed by a valid Import Authorisation issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The change was notified by the DGFT on June 2 and takes effect immediately. The revised conditions apply to silver powder, silver grains, silver containing 99.9 per cent or more by weight, and certain other forms of unwrought silver classified under Chapter 71 of the Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) 2022 import policy schedule, specifically ITC HS codes 71061000, 71069110, 71069120 and 71069190.
CBIC Directs Customs Formations Not To Link Entry Inward And Sail-Out Clearance With Vessel Boarding
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has directed customs formations across the country not to link the grant of Entry Inward or Vessel Sail-out Clearance with the physical boarding of vessels by customs officers, noting that such practices cause avoidable delays in cargo operations at ports. In Circular No. 26/2026-Customs dated 15 May 2026, the Board noted that at certain ports customs officers grant Entry Inward only after they physically board vessels post-berthing, and similarly delay Sail-out clearance until they complete boarding formalities. CBIC stated that these practices conflict with the statutory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962.
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.