SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ola Parent ANI's Plea Against Delayed Service Tax Order
Case Title : ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 3185/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 33
The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pursue a statutory appeal against a service tax demand. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no valid ground was made out to disturb the High Court's decision. The court agreed that the writ petition was rightly not entertained.
Supreme Court Allows ₹2.9 Crore GST Refund On Coal To SAIL, Rejects Revenue Challenge
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 38758/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 32
The Supreme Court on 23 January 2026 dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue, challenging a refund of about Rs. 2.9 crore granted to the Steel Authority of India's (SAIL) Bokaro plant in the initial years of the GST rollout. A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld a decision of the Jharkhand High Court that allowed the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess on coal, despite a gross delay of 676 days. The Bench observed it found “no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court."
Case Title : EverFlow PetroFils Limited & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84/2026
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a provision that allows tax authorities to raise demands of tax, interest, and penalty in cases of fraud or suppression, in situations where the department itself alleges that no taxable supply of goods or services ever took place. A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi took up the matter on January 30. The Bench directed the petitioners to serve a copy of the writ petition on the office of the Additional Solicitor General and said the ASG would assist the court on the next date of hearing.
Case Title : Prism Johnson Limited vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number : Diary No. 69736 of 2025
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz SC 44
The Supreme Court on Monday, issued notice and granted an interim stay on an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi against listed building materials company Prism Johnson Limited. The tribunal had upheld a service tax demand of about Rs 11.25 crore and denied CENVAT credit of around Rs 7.70 crore in related excise proceedings.
Case Title : The Value Added Tax Officer & Anr. vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1993 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 49
The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling that allowed a tax exemption claimed by Mitsubishi Corporation India for inter-state sales, rejecting the tax department's argument that the benefit was unavailable because an earlier sale of the goods was already exempt from tax. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the case did not warrant interference. “We see no good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,” the Court said while disposing of the appeal.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited (formerly known as Sesa Sterlite Limited/Sesa Goa Limited) vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Civil Appeal Diary No. 64232/2025
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice in a civil appeal filed by Vedanta Limited challenging a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which denied interest on a delayed refund of export duty, holding that statutory interest under the Customs Act becomes payable only after a valid refund application is filed. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan condoned the delay. It directed issuance of notice, returnable in six weeks. The order records: “Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.”
Supreme Court Lets LG Electronics Withdraw Challenge To Rajasthan HC Entry Tax Ruling
Case Title : LG Electronics India Private Limited (now known as LG Electronics India Ltd) vs Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27669- 27672/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to withdraw its Special Leave Petitions challenging a Rajasthan High Court ruling on entry tax, granting it liberty to seek a review before the High Court as the constitutional validity of the provision remains pending. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe recorded the submission that the vires of the provision had not been examined in the proceedings leading to the impugned judgment, since constitutional challenges are already pending before the Rajasthan High Court in separate writ petitions.
Case Title : PRANIJ HEIGHTS INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FOR ADMISSION
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3246/2026
The Supreme Court recently (February 6) issued notice in a challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that held that customs authorities were not required to communicate an extension granted for completing adjudication proceedings and directed that the matter be heard along with a pending appeal. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice in the special leave petition filed by Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. and directed that it be listed along with the pending SLP in Shri Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. that raises a similar question.
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Ruling On Duty Drawback For Unlocked Mobile Phones
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. vs. Avik Televentures Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.1037/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 52
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Customs, thereby letting stand a Delhi High Court ruling that unlocking or activating mobile phones prior to export does not disentitle exporters from claiming duty drawback. By an order dated January 30, 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, observing that it found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title : C L International & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) Commissionerate
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 55
The Supreme Court has recently declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court order declining to entertain writ petitions challenging show cause notices alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), holding that no good ground was made out for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. In an order dated January 30, 2026, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan dismissed the special leave petitions arising from the Delhi High Court's judgment of December 5, 2025, which had relegated the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Torrent Power Ltd.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 13084/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 56
The Supreme Court has set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment that had quashed the transfer of ₹19.28 crore in GST refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund and directed that the amount be refunded to Torrent Power Ltd. for adjustment in electricity tariff. Holding that such a mechanism was “not contemplated by Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Rules framed therein,” a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the company to transfer the amount to the authorities concerned for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund within three months.
DEEC Licence Must Be Valid On Date Of Warehouse Clearance To Claim Customs Exemption: Supreme Court
Case Title : Bangalore Mono Filaments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), Chennai & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 877/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 62
The Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated that in the case of warehoused goods, customs duty liability arises on the date of actual clearance from the warehouse, and an importer cannot claim exemption under a DEEC advance licence if the licence has expired by then. Upholding the High Court's decision, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that entitlement to exemption must subsist on the date duty is assessed.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vs Jayanthah Trading Company
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 2168/2026
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against a ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, which held that Customs officers cannot alter the Free on Board (FOB) value agreed upon between a buyer and seller. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed that the matter be heard along with a connected appeal.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX . & ORS. VS VIKARAM CEMENT
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 710/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 82
Holding that the Centre's 2024 litigation policy applies even to pending appeals, the Supreme Court on February 5, 2026 dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax against Vikaram Cement, ruling that the Rs. 25.47 lakh tax demand involved fell well below the Rs. 2 crore monetary limit fixed under the June 26, 2024 circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Rejecting the State's contention that the circular would not apply to appeals already filed under the repealed Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed: “A plain reading of the above condition of the circular would make it explicitly clear that even in respect of pending appeals relating to CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, the monetary limit fixed would be applicable.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) Vs Inter Globe Aviation Limited Etc
Case Number : Diary No. 58086/2025 In Civil Appeal Nos. 7744-9457/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 83
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department against its earlier judgment affirming relief granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, in a dispute concerning the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on re-import of aircraft and parts sent abroad for repairs. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan condoned the delay but declined to interfere with its earlier decision.
Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Title : Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1232-1237 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 88
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that, “Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.”
Case Title : HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES VS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2557-2578 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 90
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” manufactured by Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories is classifiable as a “fruit drink / processed fruit product” under Entry 103 of Schedule II Part A of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and not under the residuary entry taxable at 12.5%. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments dated July 2, 2018 and August 3, 2022, which had upheld taxing the product under the residuary entry.
Fox Mandal & Company Takes ₹3.9 Crore Service Tax Dispute To Supreme Court
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : Diary No. 3350 of 2026
Fox Mandal & Company has moved the Supreme Court against a CESTAT order in a service tax case involving demands of about ₹3.9 crore against the law firm. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will hear the special leave petition on April 6 after the petitioner's counsel sought time to place an additional annexure relating to reconciliation issues raised in the plea.
Case Title : Carbon Resources Pvt. Limited vs Union of India
Case Number : DIARY NO. 8158/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the denial of utilisation or refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit (ITC) after the cess on coal was scrapped. The petition, filed by Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd., claims the change has left the company with around Rs 23 crore in compensation cess credit that has become unusable because no mechanism was provided to either utilise or refund it.
Case Title : ZOOMCAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8920-8921/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 113
The Supreme Court has recently permitted Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to file a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders arising from proceedings for the financial year 2019–20, after the Rajasthan High Court disposed of its writ petitions without granting liberty to pursue the appellate remedy. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with special leave petitions challenging the Rajasthan High Court's orders, which had declined to entertain Zoomcar's challenge to GST notifications extending the time limit for passing assessment orders and had disposed of the writ petitions along with the challenge to the consequent assessment orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024.
Writ Petition Against GST Show Cause Notice Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case Title : M/S TRILLION LEAD FACTORY PRIVATE LTD VS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7101/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 118
The Supreme Court on 27 February dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Trillion Lead Factory Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the Telangana High Court's refusal to interfere with a show cause notice proposing cancellation of its GST registration. A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held: “It is trite law that no writ lies against the issuance of a show cause notice, and such a writ petition would not be maintainable.”
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Ruhi Siraj Makda
Case Number : Diary No. 8941/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 120
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that directed the grant of an IGST refund to an exporter despite errors in GST returns. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while hearing the matter, refused to interfere with the High Court's decision but kept open the question regarding the applicability of the proviso to Rule 96 of the CGST Rules for consideration in an appropriate case.
Case Title : The State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : C.A. No. 3012-3026/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Bombay High Court's 2009 rulings that had granted electricity duty relief on captive power generation to industries, including Reliance Industries Ltd., for the period between 2000 and 2005. The appeals challenged the Bombay High Court judgments dated October 5, 2009, and November 7, 2009, which had quashed state notifications withdrawing exemption and allowed full electricity duty relief to industries for the intervening period.
Supreme Court Dismisses Fox Mandal's Appeal In ₹3.89 Crore Service Tax Case
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 134
The Supreme Court recently (March 25) dismissed an appeal filed by Fox Mandal and Company against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Noida, declining to interfere with the CESTAT order, which upheld service tax and CENVAT-related demands aggregating to about Rs. 3.89 crore. While refusing to interfere with the CESTAT judgment dated December 11, 2024, which had upheld substantial service tax demands and remanded certain issues for reconsideration, a bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that no error of law or fact was made out.
Case Title : M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax U.P. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 5266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 135
The Supreme Court has directed Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs 3.5 crore in a GST dispute and ordered that no coercive action be taken against it for now. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the company's challenge to a November 3, 2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to entertain its writ petition. The company had earlier approached the High Court against assessment orders for 2021–22 and 2022–23, contending that they were passed ex parte without giving it access to key documents, including the SIB report.
Tax Exemptions Are 'Defeasible' Concessions, Not Enforceable Rights: Supreme Court
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3012 - 3026 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
Holding that a tax exemption is only a “defeasible” concession, the Supreme Court has ruled that beneficiaries have no legally enforceable right to its continuation beyond the period of grant and that such benefits can be withdrawn by the State in public interest. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was allowing appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a batch of industrial units and captive power producers, including Reliance Industries Ltd., challenging Bombay High Court judgments that had quashed notifications withdrawing electricity duty exemptions granted to industries generating power for captive use.
Case Title : Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
Case Number : Diary No. - 24607/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 153
The Supreme Court has held that the appeal filed by Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited against a reassessment order could not be rejected for non-payment of statutory pre-deposit, as the amount already deposited by it in the earlier round of litigation exceeded the 12.5% requirement under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan restored the Federation's VAT appeal before the appellate authority, holding that the statutory requirement stood satisfied.
Supreme Court Rejects Jharkhand's Plea Against SAIL, Upholds ₹30.29 Crore Input Tax Credit Relief
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd
Case Number : Diary No. 18250 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India dismissed State of Jharkhand's special leave petition against Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) in a dispute concerning the transition of input tax credit (ITC) from the pre-GST regime, upholding the Jharkhand High Court's direction on January 30, 2025, to restore Rs. 30.29 crore with interest. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe found no ground to interfere with the high court's order and dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court Stays ₹14.91 Crore Customs Duty Recovery Against HP India, Issues Notice
Case Title : M/S. HP INDIA SALES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NSV)
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4206/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 162
The Supreme Court has stayed recovery pursuant to a Rs.14.91 crore customs demand against HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and issued notice in its appeal against a November 4, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). HP India's appeal challenges the CESTAT Mumbai order, which upheld the classification of its imported “HP Latex printers” as inkjet printing machines instead of inkjet printers, leading to the duty demand along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Ruling In Tata Steel Case, Upholds Entry Tax On H.R. Sheets
Case Title : TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX
Case Number : Diary No. 12365 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to interfere with a ruling of the Allahabad High Court that hot rolled (H.R.) coils and H.R. sheets are not the same commodity, and that tax exemption available to coils cannot be claimed for sheets, thereby restoring entry tax and penalty against Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi found no ground to interfere with the order of the Allahabad high court and dismissed the special leave petition.
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs Challenge Against ITC Ltd Over Quicklime Classification
Case Title : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) Versus M/S ITC LIMITED
Case Number : Diary No. 15126-2026
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Customs Department's challenge against ITC Ltd, upholding a ruling that treated imported “quicklime” as an industrial form of lime rather than a chemically pure compound. The classification turned on whether the product, containing about 92% calcium oxide, could be considered a high-purity chemical. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan found no grounds to interfere with the CESTAT Kolkata Bench order dated June 20, 2025, which had held in favour of ITC Ltd. on the issue of classification of imported goods.
Case Title : M/s Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 12390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 182
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Revenue regarding the digitisation of 14 files seized in a GST investigation that are now stated to be missing in the case of Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. The taxpayer argued that the absence of the original files affected its ability to establish the genuineness of transactions in pending GST adjudication proceedings. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted the Revenue's stand that although the original physical files were missing, all the documents had already been digitised and supplied to the taxpayer in a pen drive.
Supreme Court Requests Early Delhi HC Hearing In Pernod Ricard's ₹3,000 Crore Customs Duty Dispute
Case Title : PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.5200-5201/2023
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Delhi High Court to hear, within weeks, Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd's challenge to a September 2025 customs adjudication order in a valuation dispute in which it allegedly faces duty liability of around Rs 3,000 crore. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh noted that Pernod Ricard's writ petition before the Delhi High Court was listed for July 28, 2026.
Case Title : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3910 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 189
The Supreme Court on Friday held that a state cannot impose its own Value-Added Tax (VAT) on a transaction that qualifies as an inter-state sale merely because the Central Sales Tax Act deems the sale to have taken place within that state for the limited purpose of identifying which state may collect tax. A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar held that where the statutory provision defining an inter-state sale conflicts with the provision determining the deemed location of a sale, the former prevails.
Case Title : RAJASTHAN METALS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 16692/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 191
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Union Government's stand in a dispute where importers have challenged customs authorities' jurisdiction to question preferential duty claims under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) despite valid Certificates of Origin issued by the exporting country. The Court also directed that no final adjudication order be passed in the matter for now. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Manmohan was hearing special leave petitions filed by importers, including Rajasthan Metals, against a Delhi High Court order.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Future Maker Directors In Rs 54.77 Crore Service Tax Evasion Case
Case Title : RADHE SHYAM & ANR. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3559/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 193
The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Radhey Shyam and another senior official of Future Maker Life Care Pvt Ltd in a Rs 54.77 crore service tax evasion case. The case arises from allegations that the multi-level direct marketing company failed to discharge its statutory tax liabilities. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that continued custody of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose in the tax case. The Court noted that assets worth about Rs 261 crore, including cash and immovable properties linked to the company and family members, had already been attached.
Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Relief To RSRTC In ₹16 Crore Service Tax Dispute
Case Title : THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CGST JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Case Number : Diary No.24485/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 197
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a tribunal ruling that granted major relief to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) in a long-running service tax dispute involving demands exceeding ₹16 crore over allegations that it operated as a “tour operator” and failed to pay tax on certain other services. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur, against a January 6 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, Gujarat v. M/s Reliance Industries Limited
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 199
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd. in its long-running customs classification dispute, holding that imported n-Hexane cannot be treated as motor spirit merely because its flash point is below 25°C. The court held that the Customs Department failed to prove that the product satisfied all conditions required for such classification, including suitability for use as fuel in spark ignition engines.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Versus M/S DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 24478-2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an appeal filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) challenging a CESTAT ruling that upheld a service tax demand of over ₹45 crore. The demand relates to upfront fees received under long-term lease arrangements for property development linked to the Delhi Metro project. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice and agreed to hear the case on merits. "Issue notice on the Civil Appeal as well as on the application for condonation of delay."
Case Title : STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs JSW STEEL LTD AND ANR
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.18141-18142/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 201
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court ruling directing Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs 47.47 crore in electricity duty to JSW Steel, upholding the company's claim to exemption till August 2019 under the State's incentive scheme. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Maharashtra's special leave petitions challenging the April 2 judgment. “We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the respondents/caveators. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s). The Special Leave Petitions are hence dismissed.”
Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST On Online Money Gaming, Fantasy Sports; 2023 Amendments Retrospective
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) Vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 Diary No. 30797 / 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the GST framework taxing online gaming, fantasy sports, and casino transactions involving staking on uncertain outcomes, affirming the 28% levy applicable to such taxable actionable claims. It also held that the 2023 GST amendments, which specifically brought online money gaming, casinos, and horse racing within the revised tax framework, are merely clarificatory and therefore apply retrospectively.
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
CESTAT Cannot Reject Taxpayer Appeals Below ₹2 Lakh On Monetary Limit Alone: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shri Name Singh (Naim Singh) Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Kanpur
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 3 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL)11
The Allahabad High Court recently held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot mechanically reject a taxpayer's appeal on the ground that the amount involved is below ₹2 lakh. The Court said such appeals are maintainable as a rule and may be refused only in exceptional cases. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow Versus Shri Sarad Chand Agrahari @ Sharad Chand Agrahari
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 19 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 12
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently set aside a Customs tribunal order after finding that the tribunal failed to first examine whether the noticees (taxpayers) had actually sought cross-examination before holding that the adjudication proceedings stood vitiated for breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla ruled that the procedure under Section 138-B of the Customs Act, 1962, can be said to have been breached only if a specific request for cross-examination was made by the noticee and was then denied.
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that any money deposited by a taxpayer with the GST authorities, in the facts of the case, prior to filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, must be adjusted towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the appeal. In the present case, an interest liability of Rs 1.43 Crore was raised against Excel Vehicles, a unit of My Auto World Kanpur Private Limited, against which the taxpayer preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Allahabad High Court Declines To Quash Composite GST Notices To Multiple Assessees
Case Title : SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd and another Versus Union of India and 5 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 7515 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 15
The Allahabad High Court has recently declined to quash composite show cause notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central and Uttar Pradesh GST Acts to multiple assessees (taxpayers), holding that whether such clubbing is permissible is a mixed question of fact and law that must ordinarily be examined during statutory proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed, “Wherever it may be disputed that multiple noticees have been wrongly roped in together, that issue by very nature, would remain a mixed question of fact and law. Evidence would have to be led before any firm conclusion may be drawn, i.e. whether the dispute is such as may involve more than one noticee. It may normally be examined during statutory proceedings.”
“Access To Justice Cannot Be Held Hostage To Technology”: Allahabad High Court On Filing GST Appeals
Case Title : M/S. Ennbee Living Llp v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1235 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 16
The Allahabad High Court on 20 February addressed difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing appeals under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to technological barriers in the online system. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a case filed by Ennbee Living LLP, pertaining to the generation of a temporary id to file appeal under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Allahabad High Court Stays GST Order Confirming ₹13 Crore Tax Demand Against Dell India Arm
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 801 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 19
The Allahabad High Court has recently stayed the operation and effect of a GST demand order against Dell International Services India Private Limited, the Indian services arm of US technology major Dell, after recording its submission that a jurisdictional error had crept into the proceedings. Appearing for the company, counsel submitted that besides violation of principles of natural justice, the adjudicating authority had confirmed a higher demand than what was proposed in the show cause notice.
Case Title : Oppo Mobile India Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1351 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 20
The Allahabad High Court has recently granted interim protection to Oppo Mobile India Private Limited in its challenge to the validity of Section 15(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after an adjudication order confirmed a total tax demand of Rs 599.07 crore along with equivalent penalty and interest under Section 74 of the Act, according to the writ petition. The order in challenge dated December 12, 2025, confirmed demands of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Central Goods and Services Tax, and State Goods and Services Tax across multiple registrations of the company for financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24, the petition states.
Once Goods Found Of Indian Origin, Customs Seizure Arbitrary And Malafide: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : J.K. Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Smt. Jasvinderkaur Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. and Uttarakhand Lko. and 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 258 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 26
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has expressed surprise at the seizure and detention of areca nuts by the customs authority on the ground that they were of foreign origin despite one lab test indicating Indian origin and a government laboratory test failing to determine their origin. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla was dealing with a batch of writ petitions involving seizure of the goods by customs authorities and held: “In such a situation, when the goods have been identified as goods of Indian origin, the entire exercise of the customs authorities in seizing the goods and thereafter continuing to detain the said goods appears to be not just arbitrary but also malafide. It is astonishing to note that the goods were examined once again, that too, from a Government laboratory that could not ascertain the origin of the goods. Even after the second report has come to light, the authorities have continued to detain the goods without having any basis in law to do so.”
Case Title : Shri Dewan Publications v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1580 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 29
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that adjudication notice ought to be served through physical mode after cancellation of GST registration, as the taxpayer cannot access the portal thereafter. A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held: “Once the registration is cancelled and the registered persons thus disabled from working on the Common Portal and in any case, are relieved of obligation to check the Common Portal thereafter, it is wholly natural and practical that any adjudication notice issued after cancellation of registration may be served through physically in terms of the provisions of Section 169 (1) (a) (b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017.”
Case Title : M/S Jubair Enterprises v. Union of India and Another
The Allahabad High Court on 17 March held that GST registration cannot be cancelled merely because a taxpayer fails to reply to a show cause notice or appear on the date fixed for hearing, and that authorities must record reasons before taking such a drastic step. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran set aside the cancellation of GST registration of Jubair Enterprises and granted the petitioner liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Allahabad High Court Upholds Ghaziabad Property Tax Revision Based On Minimum Monthly Rent Rate
Case Title : Rajendra Tyagi and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case Number : PIL No. 1427 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation's revision of property tax based on minimum monthly rent rates (MMRR) under the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. In a PIL challenging the revision of property tax and its enhancement based on MMRR, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held: “we neither find any error in determination of 'MMRR' based upon categorization/classification of the properties nor any illegality in the impugned decision of the respondents to revise/enhance the property taxes based upon 'MMRR'. The exercise undertaken by the respondents is found to be fully in consonance with the statutory provisions requiring no interference by this Court.”
Case Title : Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Sai Traders v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication of an order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut that assertion with cogent material. It further held that the appellate authority is bound to give an independent finding on the date of communication of the order.
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
No DIN? RFN On GST Orders Enough To Prove Digital Signature: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Pedda Masthan Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 1363/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APHC) 14
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated its view that the presence of a system-generated Reference Number (RFN) on GST orders issued through the portal is sufficient to establish that the document has been digitally signed. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders on the ground that they lacked physical signatures or a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Case Title : Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 21240/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 15
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 2 February held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be disallowed merely because essential commodities are sold at subsidised prices fixed by the State Government. It further held that by-products such as broken rice, bran and husk retained by millers during the milling of paddy do not constitute a taxable disposal or transfer attracting levy under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, challenging an assessment order passed for the period from June 2014 to March 2015.
Case Title : Fysolate Technologies v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : W.P (C)11150/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that where export is the direct result of a sale and the two form an integrated transaction that cannot be dissociated, such a sale is protected under Article 286 of the Constitution and cannot be subjected to State taxation. Explaining the law, the Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that a sale is “in the course of export” under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, when the sale itself occasions the export and the export is inextricably linked to the sale transaction.
No Separate GST On Chemicals Supplied Under Mud Engineering Contracts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Halliburton Offshore Services v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 14517/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that GST cannot be levied separately on mud engineering services and the supply of drilling chemicals, ruling that such contracts constitute a composite supply under the Goods and Services Tax law. A Division Bench comprising Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a writ petition filed by Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., setting aside orders passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which had treated the transaction as involving separate taxable supplies.
Andhra Pradesh High Courts Rejects Sales Tax Exemption Claim Over Defective Form A-5
Case Title : M/s Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company v. State
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE Nos.66 AND 67 OF 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February, refused to interfere with orders withdrawing sales tax exemption on commission sales, holding that Form A-5 declarations not bearing the official seal of the assessing authority cannot be treated as valid under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. A dealer files Form A-5 to claim sales tax exemption on commission sales. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a tax revision case filed by Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company and Bharathi Traders, which are registered dealers engaged in the purchase and sale of tamarind and jaggery.
No CST If State Tax Already Paid On Inter-State Movement Of Goods: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Gourav Kumar v. The CTO & Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 7053/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 19
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February held that once tax is levied and collected on goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act), no Central Sales Tax (CST) can be imposed on their inter-State movement, even if statutory declaration forms such as C-Forms or F-Forms are not furnished or are defective. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a petition challenging the CST assessment for the assessment year 2004–05, filed by Gourav Kumar Anuj Kumar, a general merchant and commission agent based in Guntur district.
Case Title : A.P. United Forum for RTI Campaign Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WP(PIL) NO: 161 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 20
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently directed the State's Chief Secretary to constitute an Apex Committee to identify defaulters and recover unpaid conversion tax dues under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan ordered, “… we feel that steps have to be taken for ensuring recovery of the outstanding tax. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh to constitute an Apex Committee which would include the Principal Secretary of the Revenue department to draw a list of defaulters who have not paid the conversion tax based upon data from various Districts. Steps be then taken for recovering the tax by following the procedure as is otherwise prescribed under the Act of 2006 as also the Rules of 2018.”
Check-Posts Cannot Value or Confiscate Goods in Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders and Others v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 541/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 21
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities stationed at GST check-posts lack jurisdiction to examine the valuation of goods or to confiscate and levy penalties merely because the goods are in transit. The Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, observed that disputes relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined only by the jurisdictional assessing authority and not by proceedings initiated at the stage of interception under Sections 129 or 130 of the CGST Act. Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, empower tax authorities to detain and confiscate goods/conveyances in transit for violating GST laws.
Case Title : Balaji Ready Mix Concrete v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.11644 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that the value of materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient for manufacture of a product cannot be included in the taxable value under GST, setting aside a tax demand raised on a ready mix concrete supplier. A bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed that when components required for manufacturing a product are supplied free of cost, their value is not liable to tax.
State GST Authorities Cannot Detain Or Confiscate Goods Merely In Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders & Ors v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 541, 1756, 3097, 3225, 3227, 3252, 3254, 3258 and 3354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 26
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held on 1 April that State GST authorities cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for goods merely passing through the State in the course of inter-State trade, including on grounds such as valuation discrepancies or mismatch in quantity. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar held that such action exceeds jurisdiction in cases involving inter-State movement under the IGST framework. The Court stated: "Amounts rightfully due to State A or State C are being appropriated, by State B. It is our view that Section 129 or 130 cannot be pressed to vindicate such appropriation."
Case Title : Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 11760/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 1 April set aside a show-cause notice issued to Avanti Feeds Limited, holding that State GST authorities have no jurisdiction to assess or recover Integrated GST (IGST) on imported goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar ruled that such powers vest exclusively with customs authorities under the Customs Act. The Bench observed: “Another aspect of this matter which would also require to be noticed is the language of the proviso to Section 5(1). The said integrated tax would be levied and collected at the point when duties of customs are levied. In a large number of cases, customs duties would be levied and collected at the point of import. An officer under the State GST Act or the Central GST Act, who has been notified as the proper officer, situated in a State, which is not the entry point, of the goods, into India, would not be able to exercise jurisdiction at the point of entry of goods. Such jurisdiction can obviously be exercised only by the customs officers under the Customs Act.”
GST Refund Limitation Must Exclude COVID Period Under Section 54: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MC Wane India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 26816/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 11 March held that while computing the limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of exclusion of time during the COVID-19 period must be granted. Section 54 governs the process for claiming refunds of tax, interest, or any other amount paid under GST. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the rejection of a GST refund application filed by McWane India Private Limited on the ground of limitation and remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration. The Bench directed: “...the order of rejection of refund, dated 16.08.2024, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and without going into the question of limitation.”
GST Proceedings Against A Dissolved Company Lack Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No.6868 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 30
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March held that GST proceedings against a non-existent or dissolved company lack jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside an assessment order passed against Tata Capital Limited, observing: “The proceedings, which had been initiated, against the dissolved company, before the appointed date, would now have to be taken up against the petitioner company and not the dissolved company.”
Case Title : M/s P. Venugopal Naidu v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.: 33250 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 31
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March 2026 held that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) qualifies as a “Governmental Authority” and “Governmental Entity” under GST notifications. However, the Court clarified that contractors can claim the concessional 12% GST rate only if the works they execute meet the conditions specified in the notifications. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who executed contracts for TTD between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2022.
Case Title : Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 4725/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 33
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a GST assessment order against Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the assessing authority failed to properly examine the nature of the transaction and wrongly applied a notification retrospectively. The Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the assessment order was unsustainable for failure to examine the nature of supply and accordingly remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Case Title : Sona Enterprises v. The State
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 31510/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 34
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that merely depositing GST in the electronic ledger does not amount to payment to the Government, while setting aside a tax and penalty order against Sona Enterprises. "The provisions of Section 49(1) of the CGST Act read with Rule 87(6) & (7) of the CGST Rules makes it clear that the deposit of cash or the credit of input tax credit into the electronic ledger of the tax payer would not amount to payment of tax. Such payment of tax would occur only when the necessary amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer", the court held.
University Affiliation, NOCs Not 'Supply', No GST On Statutory Functions: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.23535
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 35
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 April, held that services provided by universities, such as grant of affiliation and issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs), are not liable to GST, as these activities are statutory in nature and do not qualify as “business” or “supply” under GST law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, while hearing a batch of writ petitions including those filed by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada and other similarly placed State universities, also held that amounts collected for affiliation, accreditation, and related approvals are not taxable services under the GST framework.
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
Case Title : Kishore Nichani Vs The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4211 OF 20252
CITATION : 2026 LLbiz HC(BOM) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that where a taxpayer has cleared the entire GST liability, including tax, interest and penalty, continuing cancellation of GST registration serves no purpose and causes undue prejudice to the taxpayer. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Kishore Nichani, who challenged the State Tax Officer's refusal to restore his GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for more than six months.
Bombay High Court Reiterates That Service Tax Is Not Applicable On Legal Services
Case Title : Manisha Rajiv Shroff v. The Union of India and Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 1684 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 69
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an advocate, holding that legal services rendered by an advocate are exempted from levy of service tax. On 5 February, a Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the proceedings were squarely covered by the Court's earlier decision in Advocate Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner. The Court observed: “8. The present proceedings also would stand covered by such notifications and the position in law as held by this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil (supra).”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Composite GST Notice Against ICAD School
Case Title : ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 736 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 67
The Bombay High Court on Friday set aside a composite show cause notice spanning five financial years, issued to ICAD School of Learning Private Limited, a JEE and NEET coaching centre that offers hostel and mess facilities. On 6 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta emphasised that consolidation defeats the statutory scheme of assessment and recovery for distinct financial years.
CERSAI-Registered Bank Dues Take Priority Over State Tax Demands: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bharat Co Operative Bank Mumbai Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Mulund
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 172 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court on 28 January held that where a bank's security interest is registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) prior in time, its dues will have priority over tax demands raised by State authorities, including GST and MVAT dues. A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing two writ petitions filed by Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., challenging demand notices, prohibitory orders, and other communications issued by State tax authorities in respect of mortgaged properties.
CPC Summons Procedure Not Applicable to GST Inquiry; No 7-Day Notice Required: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 74
Interpreting Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Bombay High Court has held that the civil court summons procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read into GST investigations and that tax authorities are not required to give seven days' prior notice before summoning a person for inquiry. A Division Bench of Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition filed by Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, who sought Rs 10 lakh as compensation for alleged illegal detention by GST officers.
Bombay High Court Restores Trader's GST Registration After Defective 'Cyclostyled Notice'
Case Title : Om Enterprises Thr. Proprietor Mr. Nagesh Gopichand Motwani vs. The Union Of India Thr. Secretary And Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12760 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 75
The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently restored the cancelled GST registration of a trader, observing that the grounds cited in the show‑cause notice and those relied upon in the cancellation order were materially different. A Bench of Justice R.G. Avachat and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar examined the effect of retrospective cancellation of GST registration and emphasised the need to issue a reasoned notice rather than a generic, template-based communication.
Bombay High Court Continues Stay On GST Notice Over 1/3rd Land Deduction Amid Pending Proceedings
Case Title : Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (A.E.), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34439 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 82
The Bombay High Court on 4 February, continued its interim order staying further action on a show cause notice issued to Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. under Section 74 of the CGST/MGST Act, observing that the core issue is whether the Department had jurisdiction to issue the notice in light of earlier High Court rulings striking down the mandatory one-third land deduction under GST. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe on 6 January, granted interim relief and directed the respondents to file a reply affidavit within two weeks on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The Court ordered that, “in the meantime, no further action under the impugned show cause notice shall be taken.”
Case Title : Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Goods and Service Tax, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.13990 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 83
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that under the First Phase of the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fee Act, 2019, one hundred percent of undisputed tax must be paid and no waiver is available on such amount, dismissing a writ petition filed by a sugar manufacturing co-operative. A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar held, “for undisputed tax, amount to be paid is 100% of the amount in column B i.e. undisputed tax and the amount to be waived is nil.”
Case Title : Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 40917 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 85
Taking note that a director of Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. is undergoing treatment for cancer and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the Bombay High Court permitted videography of summons proceedings under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It also allowed his advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during recording of the statement.
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹133.60 Crore GST Penalty Each On Shemaroo Executives
Case Title : Amit Manilal Haria & Ors Vs The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. & Anr
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed penalties of Rs.133.60 crore each imposed on the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., holding that the statutory requirements necessary to fasten personal GST liability were not satisfied. The Court found that the penalty provision invoked by the department could not be applied in the absence of proof that the officers had retained the benefit of the impugned transactions and that the transactions were conducted at their instance.
Case Title : Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 18259 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 96
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside a stamp duty demand of over Rs. 1 crore raised against Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities erred by adding the cost of constructing a Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) while recalculating the market value in a slum redevelopment project. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) acted arbitrarily in enhancing the market value by including the PTC construction cost and also ruled that revision proceedings under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act must be completed within six years.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32 Crore GST Demand On Pidilite For Non-Supply Of Verification Reports
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court on 20 February set aside a GST demand exceeding Rs. 32 crore against Pidilite, holding that non-furnishing of verification reports relied upon in adjudication amounted to a clear breach of natural justice. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe quashed the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Bench observed: “Non furnishing of verification reports and no opportunity of a fair hearing on the same, in our opinion, certainly amounted to breach of the principles of natural justice, as behind the back of the Petitioner, no opinion could have been formed and expressed in the impugned order without the Petitioner being granted an opportunity to deal with the verification reports.”
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Year-Wise Assessment In GST, Limits Scope of Section 74 Notices
Case Title : Rainbow Greeners Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 99
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently, quashed a show cause notice issued against Rainbow Greeners Nagpur, under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the ground that it unlawfully clubbed five financial years in a single composite proceeding. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta wrote: “In the light of the statutory scheme, we find that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period which is attempted by the impugned Show Cause Notices assailed in the Petition.”
GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief, Including Stay On Recovery: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 4698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 103
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief. This includes protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals. The Court said that any interpretation to the contrary would render the appellate remedy “illusory” and defeat legislative intent. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The bank had challenged recovery intimations and a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 issued while its appeal was pending before the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Upholds CESTAT Relief To KEC International In ₹4.42 Crore Excise Matter
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & ST CGST, Daman, Vapi v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No 9 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 101
The Bombay High Court on 4 February dismissed a Central Excise Appeal filed by the Revenue against KEC International Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting exemption benefits to the assessee. A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while hearing the appeal, held that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the exemption notifications; therefore, no interference was warranted.
Case Title : Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 102
Observing that extension of tax incentives granted to Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited involves a policy decision requiring inter-ministerial dialogue, the Bombay High Court has directed the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, and other concerned authorities to take a decision on the company's pending representation within two months. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, which operates the “Imagicaa” theme park and “Aquamagica” water park at Khalapur in Raigad district. The project had been recognised as a “Mega Project” under the State's Tourism Policy 2006.
Case Title : Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 100
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders passed by customs authorities determining the interest payable on an IGST refund to Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities failed to explain how the interest had been calculated under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe found that the impugned orders contained no reasoning showing that the statutory provision governing interest on delayed refunds had been applied.
Case Title : M/s. Vidarbha Beverages & Ors Vs Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 105
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, recently following a Gujarat High Court ruling, has held that assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and does not constitute “supply of services” under the GST law, and therefore GST cannot be levied on such transactions. A division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Vidarbha Beverages and its partners challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 demanding GST of Rs 59.40 lakh along with interest of Rs 40.98 lakh on the alleged non-payment of GST on the transfer of leasehold rights.
Case Title : Daulat Samirmal Mehta v. Assistant Director, DGGI & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 31 1 1 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 123
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that such liberty cannot be restricted merely on the basis of apprehensions that are not supported by material on record. The court permitted a businessman facing prosecution in a GST fraud case to travel overseas for business as well as personal reasons, observing that conditions requiring prior permission before traveling abroad are intended to ensure that the accused remains available for trial and does not evade the process of law and cannot be relied upon when the material on record does not indicate any such risk.
Cash Seizure Without 'Reason to Believe' Violates CGST Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Smruti Waghdhare v. Joint Director, DGGI & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 839 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 135
The Bombay High Court on 10 March quashed the seizure of Rs. 1 crore in cash by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) from Smruti Waghdhare, holding the action arbitrary and without authority under the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition challenging the seizure, under which Rs. 60 lakh was recovered from her premises and Rs. 40 lakh from her parents' residence during search operations.
Bombay High Court Stays Multiple GST Notices On Leasehold Transfers Until Supreme Court Ruling
Case Title : Swastik Processor Versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 42522 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 136
The Bombay High Court on 25 February granted interim protection to taxpayers facing GST proceedings on the assignment of leasehold rights, directing that recovery actions and adjudication of show cause notices be stayed until the Supreme Court of India decides the issue. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing multiple writ petitions filed by companies challenging GST demands on the transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in industrial plots and buildings, which the revenue authorities had treated as “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II(2) of the CGST Act.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Denying IGST Refund To Lubrizol, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title : Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 987 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 145
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of IGST on export of services, holding that the authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's contentions and the nature of the agreements between the parties. A Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the rejection of its refund claim of Rs 56,11,885 for July 2024 on the ground that the services provided were “intermediary services” and not export of services.
Case Title : Tata Motors Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra
Case Number : SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 81 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 149
The Bombay High Court has declined to answer questions of law on whether the hire-purchase premium collected on the sale of vehicles forms part of taxable turnover under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, in references arising from a dispute involving Tata Motors Ltd. after the company stated that it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. The court clarified that although a reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot formally be withdrawn at the instance of a party, the High Court can dispose of the reference by declining to answer the questions when the parties do not wish to pursue the matter.
Case Title : Bi-Chem India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 7331 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 150
The Bombay High Court has recently directed the Revenue to immediately restore the GST registration of Bi-Chem India Pvt. Ltd. after the department informed the court during the hearing that the suspension would be withdrawn and the registration made operational. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was dealing with a writ petition filed by the company questioning the suspension of its GST registration, along with a show cause notice dated February 18, 2026, a recovery notice, and the provisional attachment of its bank accounts issued earlier that month.
Case Title : Himtaj Ayurveda Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 159
The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 cannot be denied on mere technical grounds when a taxpayer is not at fault. A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe allowed a writ petition by Himtaj Ayurved Pvt. Ltd and directed the authorities to issue it a discharge certificate, emphasising that the scheme is a one-time measure aimed at resolving legacy disputes and ensuring disclosure of unpaid taxes.
Case Title : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 7806/2025 & Batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 176
The Bombay High Court has stayed GST demands on insurers over policies issued to SEZ units, which the department claimed were for employees, prima facie finding the retrospective levy may be without jurisdiction prior to October 1, 2023. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Farhan P. Dubash held, "Prima-facie, we find much substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the designated officer would not have jurisdiction to retrospectively levy tax on the petitioners in respect of the supply in question, namely the sale of insurance policies to the SEZ unit."
Bombay HC Quashes Rs. 1.26 Crore Service Tax Demand For Failure To Comply With Pre-SCN Process
Case Title : M/s. Sheesha Sky Lounge Hospitality and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 177
The Bombay High Court on 12 March, quashed a service tax show cause notice, holding that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause notice (pre-SCN) consultation, as required under CBEC circulars, vitiates the entire proceedings. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that pre-SCN consultation, mandated by circulars issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, is a binding requirement and cannot be bypassed merely because summons were issued to the taxpayer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Before Scheduled Date Of Hearing
Case Title : Rajkala Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1955 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 178
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed even before the scheduled date of hearing, holding that it was vitiated by a breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date fixed in the show cause notice. “The impugned order, however, was passed on 30 March 2022 in regard to which, admittedly, no hearing was granted to the petitioner as also no opportunity to file reply to the said notice, was not granted to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petition needs to succeed on the limited ground that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.”, the court observed.
Case Title : NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4815 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 179
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd., holding that such a restriction made on apprehension of fraud cannot continue beyond one year and ceases to operate by law. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe explained that Rule 86A empowers GST authorities to block a taxpayer from using the credit available in its electronic credit ledger if they have reasons to believe that the credit has been wrongly or fraudulently availed.
Case Title : JSW Steel Limited vs. Electricity Inspector & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12477 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 192
The Bombay High Court has held that the exemption from payment of electricity duty granted to Mega Projects under the Package Incentive Scheme, by a 1999 notification issued under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, continues to operate so long as the Eligibility Certificate remains valid, where the notification links the benefit to the eligibility period mentioned in the certificate. “The plain language of the Notification, read with the language of the Addenda III and the language of the Eligibility Certificate, leaves no doubt that the exemption granted under Section 5A of the BEDA,1958 [by issuing the Notification], is directly linked to the Eligibility Certificate. In fact, the language of the Notification clearly suggests that the intention of the State was to directly link the benefit of the exemption under the Act with the Eligibility Certificate granted under the Scheme,” the court observed.
Case Title : V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 202
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders rejecting GST refund claims of V Ships India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellate authority failed to examine the terms of the service agreement before deciding whether the company's services were exports or intermediary services. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said the absence of any findings on the agreement, which was relevant to determining the nature of services, vitiated the appellate orders.
Case Title : Karl Mayer STOLL Textilmaschinenfabrik GmbH Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7882 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 203
The Bombay High Court has quashed show cause notices issued by customs authorities against a German textile machinery manufacturer and its Indian subsidiary, holding that the notices were without jurisdiction and that a foreign exporter cannot be made liable for alleged misdeclaration by Indian importers for a period prior to the 2018 amendment to the Customs Act. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that proceedings initiated against a foreign entity situated outside India were unsustainable in law.
Case Title : Shemaroo Entertainment Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16848 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 218
The Bombay High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted a clear cleavage of opinion among High Courts on the issue and held that an authoritative determination is necessary. The court noted that while some High Courts have upheld such consolidated notices, others have held them to be impermissible, leading to divergent judicial views.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Cancellation Order For Lack Of Reasons
Case Title : Tex Fab India Vs Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1118 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 217
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order cancelling the GST registration of Tex Fab India after finding that the impugned order did not contain any reasons. The Court also recorded that the attachment of the petitioner's bank account had lapsed by operation of law under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. A bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe observed that the issue was no longer res integra and that recording reasons while cancelling GST registration is a settled legal requirement.
Case Title : Seco Tools India Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.3704 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 222
The Bombay High Court has held that while an amalgamation order is chargeable to stamp duty as a “conveyance”, stamp authorities cannot levy duty on such an order by treating accounting entries such as goodwill, share premium, or profit and loss figures as consideration in the absence of any real issuance of shares or payment of money. Holding that amounts reflected in accounts can be considered for stamp duty only if they are clearly linked to actual issuance of shares or real payment of consideration, a bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed: “If there is money paid, that can be counted. But if there is neither, then the authority cannot create a value by picking up accounting entries and calling them consideration. That would be going beyond the law. It would make the provision wider than what the Legislature has written. Therefore, unless the amounts shown in the accounts can clearly be linked to actual issuance of shares or actual payment of consideration, they cannot be used for levying stamp duty.”
Input Tax Credit Blocking Cannot Continue Beyond One Year From Imposition: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Elitecon International Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 224
The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that a restriction on utilization of Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot continue beyond one year from the date of its imposition. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, examining Rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, observed, "Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered view that there appears to be much substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, that the blocking of ITC in the ECL of the Petitioner beyond the period of one year is against the mandate of Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules. This is further clear from the very language of the aforesaid Rule, which provides that the restriction as envisaged, of blocking of the ITC will cease to have effect after expiry of the period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction. Rule 86A (3) thus provides for an automatic unblocking of credit post the expiry of one year."
Case Title : Infinx Services Private Limited Vs The Union of India through, the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.11996 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 227
The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST refund rejection against Infinx Services Private Limited, finding that the tax department shut the company out of the process by deciding the case without giving it a hearing, even after it asked for time citing heavy rains in Mumbai. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the order had been passed without affording a personal hearing despite a specific request to reschedule the hearing on account of heavy rains in the city.
Case Title : Covestro India Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No.11540 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 233
The Bombay High Court recently observed that Commissioner of Customs cannot issue public notices in a manner that dilutes the benefits under free trade agreements or overrides statutory provisions and CBIC circulars, while setting aside an order denying preferential duty to Covestro India Pvt. Ltd. The dispute arises from a public notice issued in March 2024 by the Commissioner of Customs at Nhava Sheva, which prescribed additional documentation requirements in cases involving third-party invoicing, including submission of the exporter's invoice and value breakup for verification of country-of-origin claims.
GST Refund Cannot Be Rejected Without Considering Documents Already On Record: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Interactive Brokers Software Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4543 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 236
The Bombay High Court on 16 April set aside an order rejecting a GST refund claim after finding that the authorities failed to properly consider documents submitted by the taxpayer, including the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC). A Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that when relevant documents are already placed on record, the refund claim must be examined fairly and through a reasoned order. It observed: “No prejudice would be caused to the Department if the issue is re-examined and all the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of the refund claim are duly considered.”
Bombay High Court Quashes Municipal Cess Assessment Orders Against HPCL Over 10-Year Delay
Case Title : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 637 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 239
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed municipal cess assessment orders passed by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., holding that completing proceedings more than ten years after issuing show cause notices was unreasonable and liable to be set aside. A Division Bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe noted that the issue raised was already covered by its earlier ruling and that the corporation was bound by it.
Bombay High Court Allows GST Refund For Pre-July 5, 2022 Claims Under Revised Inverted Duty Formula
Case Title : CHEC-TPL Line 4 Joint Venture v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 240
The Bombay High Court has granted a GST refund to a Joint Venture, which is executing Mumbai Metro works, holding that the revised refund formula for inverted tax structure applies even to claims filed before July 5, 2022, when the amended formula came into force. “The Petitioner will be entitled to the refund as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act being the difference in the GST rates, due to inverted rate structure.”, the court held. Quashing rejection orders passed by GST authorities, a Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe directed the authorities to grant refunds on the petitioner's applications.
Bombay High Court Quashes GST Demand On Mumbai University, Says Affiliation Not 'Supply' Of Service
Case Title : University of Mumbai vs. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 248
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a GST demand of Rs 16.90 crore on the University of Mumbai, holding that affiliation fees collected by the university are part of its statutory duties and not taxable. “Thus, having examined Section 7 and its purport in regard to its applicability in the context of the petitioner University receiving affiliation fee, in our opinion, there ought not to be any ambiguity that the collection of affiliation fees by the petitioner University in the discharge of its statutory functions, as noted hereinabove, can at all amount to a “supply” as defined under Section 7 of the CGST Act. As a consequence thereto, once such activity itself is not 'supply' and/or it is not business within the meaning and purview of sub-section 1(a) of Section 7, there is no question of the charging provision i.e. Section 9 which provides for levy and collection being applicable,” the Court held.
Case Title : Tata Sons Private Ltd. Vs Union of India, through the Ministry of Finance
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4914 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 250
The Bombay High Court has held that the Rs. 8,450 crore paid by Tata Sons to NTT Docomo under an arbitral award cannot be subjected to GST. The payment arose from a dispute over Docomo's exit rights under a shareholders' agreement in Tata Teleservices, and the Court rejected the tax department's claim that it amounted to a taxable service. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was considering whether settlement of the arbitral award and the accompanying consent terms could be treated as a “supply” under GST law.
Case Title : Manjeet Singh son of Ujagar Singh Vs The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 13113 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 270
The Bombay High Court has held that the government cannot retain stamp duty wrongly paid by a citizen merely because there was a short delay in seeking a refund. The Court said procedural delay cannot defeat a person's substantive right to recover money mistakenly paid under a wrong stamp duty head, particularly when the transaction could not proceed further. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the state cannot “unjustly enrich itself” by forfeiting money paid due to an inadvertent mistake. The court reproduced the Supreme Court's observation that the State should not ordinarily rely on technicalities while dealing with citizens.
Bombay High Court Directs Emirates To Pursue GST Appeal In Air Cargo Services Tax Dispute
Case Title : Emirates Vs State of Maharasthra
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10258 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 269
The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Emirates challenging a GST demand order passed by the Maharashtra State Tax Department over taxation of air cargo transportation services. The airline argued that transportation of goods by aircraft from India to destinations outside India, along with ancillary services, formed part of a composite supply exempt from GST under a Central Government notification issued in 2018 granting exemption to export air cargo transportation services.
Bombay High Court Quashes Post-Merger GST Demand Against Vodafone Mobile Services
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6637 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 273
The Bombay High Court has recently held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after it ceased to exist due to its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. were void ab initio. The court set aside the adjudication order and held that the show cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that, “the show-cause notice itself having been issued without jurisdiction, the proceedings stand vitiated and are rendered void ab initio.”
Case Title : Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 275
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the taxpayer had earlier filed another refund application for a broader tax period, where the later claim was filed within the limitation period and there is no statutory bar against such a claim. Referring to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which governs refund claims, the Court said: “Section 54 does not provide any bar for a party to maintain more than one application, and more particularly, in a case where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse.”
Case Title : M/s D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : GST, Corporate Guarantee, Taxable Supply, Consideration, Rule 28 CGST Rules, DGGI, Supply of Services, Holding Company, Subsidiary Company, Edelweiss Financial Services
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 281
The Bombay High Court has held that D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. cannot be subjected to GST for corporate guarantees it issued to State Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra to secure loans granted to its group companies, as the company received no consideration for furnishing those guarantees. A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta observed: “There was no flow of consideration for the rendering of services. Therefore, taxability does not arise There was no consideration for the corporate guarantees were issued by the Petitioner on behalf of the companies.”
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 280
The Bombay High Court has quashed a ₹10.25 crore GST demand raised against Capital First Limited post its merger with IDFC First Bank. It held that proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that despite repeated intimations about the merger, the department continued proceedings against the non-existent entity. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, the Court reiterated that “the initiation of assessment proceedings against an entity which had ceased to exist was void ab initio.”
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
Amicable Settlement In Commercial GST Dispute Allows Quashing of FIR: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Indian Compressors Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number : CRR 530 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 38
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed an FIR and released the frozen corporate bank accounts of Indian Compressors Ltd., clarifying that where a dispute is essentially commercial and private in nature, and the parties have voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement, criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even for non-compoundable offences.
A Bench of Justice Uday Kumar noted: "Where the dispute is essentially commercial and private in character, and the parties have voluntarily reached an amicable settlement, the High Court, to secure the ends of justice and prevent an abuse of judicial process, shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences," the Bench stated.
Joint Commissioner's VAT Revision Cannot Be Revisited By Senior Officer: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Sales Tax Officer v. Sanjay Sur and Another
Case Number : R.V.W.O No.5 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 39
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that once an order is revised by a Joint Commissioner under Section 86 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, it cannot be subjected to a further suo motu revision under Section 85 by a Senior Joint Commissioner, as both officers act as delegates of the Commissioner and exercise the same revisional authority. A Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda, while dismissing a review petition filed by the West Bengal Tax Department, wrote: "Once an order has been subjected to revision under Section 86, it cannot thereafter be revised under Section 85 of the Act of 2003. Permitting such a course of action would result in an impermissible cycle of successive revisions", stated the bench.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Service Tax On C&F and Transport of Steel, Excludes Bending & Bundling
Case Title : Naresh Kumar & Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : CEXA 49 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 40
On 4 February, the Calcutta High Court held that service tax applies to “Clearing and Forwarding” (C&F) services and transport expenses for steel products. The Court clarified that activities such as transporting, storing, forwarding, and record-keeping fall within the scope of C&F services, while bending, bundling, and stock verification of goods do not. A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal by Naresh Kumar & Co., which claimed exemption from service tax on payments received for C&F services rendered to Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) and Tata Ryerson Ltd (TRL).
Superintendent Cannot Adjudicate Cases Involving Extended Limitation: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Nishant Jagaty & Anr. v. The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Rannge-III, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 20394 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 42
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that cases that invoke the extended period of limitation are expressly excluded from the adjudicatory powers of a Superintendent, even if the demand falls within their monetary limit. Justice Om Narayan Rai, allowed a writ petition filed by the partners of Radiant Security, challenging an order by which the Superintendent, CGST, demanded service tax of Rs. 72,000 along with education cess and secondary and higher secondary cess, and imposed penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata v. Shri Anil Kumar Soni & Anr.
Case Number : CUSTA 30 of 2025 & CUSTA 31 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 79
The Calcutta High Court on 31 March restored the adjudicating authority's confiscation of 1,999.90 grams of gold, holding that clandestine transport and high scientific purity of bullion establish a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under the Customs Act. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar allowed the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata's appeals, reinstated the confiscation and penalties, and set aside the Tribunal's order that had granted relief to the respondents, Anil Kumar Soni, owner of A.R.P. Ornaments, and Anil Kumar Gaur, the carrier.
Calcutta High Court Denies Summary Judgment In GST Compliance Dispute, Says Trial Mandatory
Case Title : M/S. S. G. KAREL AND SONS JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S MADAN LAL AGARWALLA JEWELLERS AND OTHERS
Case Number : IA No. GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/669/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 82
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April held that objections relating to GST compliance and supply of goods raise triable issues that require a full trial and refused to grant summary judgment in a commercial dispute. Justice Aniruddha Roy was hearing an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success. He observed: “Once factual enquiry is required to be made on the basis of the case and counter-case made by the parties to a suit, it inevitably gives rise to triable issues for which a properly constituted trial is required.”
Calcutta High Court Treats Polypropylene Sacks As Plastic, Not Textile Products In GST Dispute
Case Title : Mega Flex Plastics Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 167
The Calcutta High Court has held that polypropylene leno bags manufactured by Mega Flex Plastics Limited should be treated as plastic sacks, not textile products, for GST purposes. A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the company's bags were commonly known in the market as “plastic sacks” and not textile sacks. The court held, “The sacks manufactured by the appellant are commonly known in the market as plastic sacks. They are not known as synthetic textile sacks or textile sacks.”
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.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : WPT No. 168 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd., allowing the company to seek protection from GST recovery proceedings by following a Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular that applies in cases where the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet operational. The matter came before Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, who was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the State tax authorities under Section 107(11) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, as well as a later order rejecting the company's rectification application under Section 161.
Summary Processing Cannot Decide Debatable ESI, EPF Claims: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : TAXC No. 152 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 8
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 16 April held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke summary processing powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to disallow claims involving debatable legal issues, including employee contributions towards ESI and EPF, as such adjustments fall outside the limited scope of prima facie scrutiny. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed the appeal filed by Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd against the orders passed by the AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Naveen and Suraj Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
Case Number : W.P.(CRL) 1872/2024, CRL.M.A. 18198/2024.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 114
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with GST summons issued to two Panipat-based traders, holding that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are meant only to aid an inquiry and do not amount to the start of coercive proceedings. Dismissing the challenge, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an attempt to quash summons at the inquiry stage is, in substance, an attempt to seek protection from arrest.
Delhi High Court Intervenes Against CESTAT Release Order On 53 Kgs Of Imported Gold
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs vs. Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 84/2025 & CM APPL. 33358/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 122
The Delhi High Court on 16 January 2026 issued an ad-interim order, effectively intervening against a CESTAT order which had granted the provisional release of gold to Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that prima facie, the Tribunal order dated 17 March 2025, had failed to consider the fact and legal effect of 53 kilograms of imported gold being kept in unauthorised custody for four days, from 13 August 2020 to 17 August 2020.
2017 CBIC Circular On Proper Officers' Powers Under CGST Act Is Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Lovelesh Singhal vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1426/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 128
The Delhi High Court upheld a 2017 Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) assigning functions to officers under the CGST Act, holding that it is legally valid when issued pursuant to a proposal by the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. In a judgement dated 2 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a challenge to the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017, while granting limited relief only by rescheduling the summons issued to the petitioner.
No Vested Right To Redeem Confiscated Prohibited Goods Under Customs Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Bhagwan Corporation v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD Patparganj
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18556/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 138
The Delhi High Court has recently held that redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not a vested or automatic right, particularly where the goods are prohibited for import. Dismissing the writ petition filed by an importer challenging the absolute confiscation of areca nuts, the division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Section 125(1) of the Customs Act employs the expression “may”, thereby conferring discretion upon the adjudicating authority to grant, or deny redemption, particularly in cases involving prohibited goods. The statute does not create an absolute or vested right to redemption.”
Case Title : Hira Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSAA 7/2026 & CM APPL. 7007/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 153
The Delhi High Court has recently held that once the market value of goods seized by the Customs is specified in a show cause notice, the burden lies on the one who recieved notice to disprove the valuation with cogent material, and a mere denial is insufficient to seek interference in appellate proceedings. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing an importer's appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Customs adjudicating authority and CESTAT, which had upheld confiscation and penalties in a case relating to smuggling of foreign-origin cigarettes.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Order For Failing To Consider IBC Moratorium Plea
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1988/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 154
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order passed against a Finance company, holding that the tax authorities failed to consider the company's specific plea that proceedings were barred due to a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul quashed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, which had confirmed a demand of Rs. 67.5 lakh towards alleged ineligible input tax credit (ITC), along with interest and penalty.
Case Title : Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2286/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 183
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an exporter cannot block the entry or processing of a return shipment merely by disowning the consignment, and that once the importer/exporter refuses to clear the goods, the statutory consequences under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 must follow. For context, Section 48 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading.
Non-Declaration Of Gold At Green Channel Not Always Smuggling: Delhi High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2417/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in a case of non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel which does not amount to smuggling, absolute confiscation may be disproportionate and redemption on payment of fine may be permitted. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “The release is permitted only upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with applicable duty. The orders under challenge therefore do not condone the violation and instead calibrate the consequence.”
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. M/S Pro-Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SERTA 12/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 220
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) permitting verification of certificates for claiming service tax exemption on services rendered to foreign embassies and diplomatic missions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul held that no substantial question of law arose from the CESTAT's decision, which had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the exemption certificates submitted by the assessee.
Service Taxability Appeals Lie To Supreme Court, Not High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi, South Commissionerate v. M/S Bureau Of Energy Efficiency
Case Number : SERTA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 221
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a service tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that questions relating to taxability fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, and can be examined only by the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “we have gone through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent in the matter of M/S Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd (referred supra). In the said matter, by relying on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Spicejet Ltd. (referred supra), it has been held that the issue in relation to taxability, an appeal before the High Court under Section 35G is not maintainable, and the only remedy available is an appeal to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”
Case Title : The Ferry International v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 723/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 222
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere presence of the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court, when the cause of action arises from summons and demands issued by authorities located outside Delhi. The Division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter challenging summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Zonal Unit at Ahmedabad and a consequential demand raised by customs authorities, on the ground that the petition was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court also held that it was not maintainable in the light of the earlier proceeding.
Case Title : Shri Himanshu Gupta v. The Commissioner Of Central Excise
Case Number : CEAC NO. 48/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 224
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not absolute, and may be lawfully denied in fact-specific circumstances, particularly where the witnesses are closely connected to the assessee and the allegations are supported by independent corroborative evidence. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, holding that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had erred in denying cross-examination of witnesses.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General v. M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 55/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 267
The Delhi High Court has upheld a CESTAT order restoring an entity's customs broker licence, holding that action based on a vague show cause notice cannot be sustained in law. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs challenging the CESTAT order which had set aside the revocation of the respondent's Customs Broker licence.
Case Title : Gautam Jain v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15864/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 273
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a jeweller challenging the penalty imposed on him in a gold smuggling case, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality with a co-accused. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority, which had imposed a penalty of ₹16 lakh on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title : Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5581/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 274
The Delhi High Court has held that show cause notices (SCNs) under the GST regime can cover multiple financial years, both under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul clarified that its earlier ruling in Ambika Traders is not confined to cases involving fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Case Title : Sandeep Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3207/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 279
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash a show cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the petitioner's plea regarding limitation must be decided by the adjudicating authority. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Once the petitioner has submitted his explanation on the issue of limitation based on the judgments referred above, it can be expected of the respondents to deal with the contentions of the petitioner.”
Case Title : Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3328/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 288
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations relating to non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) and other procedural lapses in GST proceedings are matters to be examined in statutory appeal and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Mere dissatisfaction with the manner in which the adjudicating authority has dealt with the record cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹45 Lakh GST Demand Against HUF After Revenue Confirms ITC Reversal
Case Title : Harsh Khanna And Sons HUF v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4900/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 306
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand against a Hindu Undivided Family after revenue authorities confirmed before the Court that the disputed input tax credit had been reversed prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition challenging orders that had disallowed ITC and raised a demand of over Rs 45 lakh for the financial year 2018–19.
Case Title : Meever India Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16297/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 307
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a steel importer challenging the detention of its goods, holding that the mere issuance of a circular or decision by an authority located in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by a company engaged in the import of steel products, whose consignments had been detained at ports in Kolkata and Chennai due to rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Case Title : Lava International Ltd. v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10977/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 318
The Delhi High Court has held that mobile importers, including Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty paid by them. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple importers, including Jaina Mobile India, Intex Technologies, and UT Electronics (Petitioners), all of whom had been granted refunds of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) but were denied interest. However, no interest on refund was granted to Lava International, as there was no undue delay on part of the Department in re-assessing or processing the company's application.
Case Title : Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office Of The GST Officer Ward 71
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2339/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 345
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order of Rs 26.7 crore against a company engaged in the business of trading and export of branded mobile phones, holding that it was denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing by the tax authorities. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed that the timeline granted to the petitioner to respond to the Department's queries and to appear for a personal hearing was inadequate and violative of principles of natural justice.
Case Title : Vinod J Sharma v. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : WP(c) 2129/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 352
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Union of India in a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, observing that there is prima facie merit in the petitioner's arguments on legislative competence and arbitrariness of the levy. The Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition filed by Vinod J. Sharma, wherein the validity of the cess imposed on pan masala has been questioned.
Case Title : Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1993/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 375
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to entertain a challenge to a corrigendum allegedly expanding the scope of a show cause notice by including an additional financial year, holding that such issues require factual examination and are not suited for adjudication under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by Manpar Icon Technologies challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent corrigendum and the order-in-original confirming a tax demand of over Rs 42 lakh.
Case Title : Jaina Marketing and Associates v. Union of India & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1225/2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 383
The Delhi High Court has recently held that importers are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty in cases where prolonged delay in reassessment is attributable to the Department. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed, "For the delay in Department's passing of the re-assessment orders, the Petitioners cannot be blamed or expected to unduly suffer. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that in the said four writ petitions, the interest would liable to be paid to the Petitioners."
ARN Cannot Be Equated With Valid GST Registration Certificate: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt Ltd v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12042 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 386
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld Oil and Natural Gas Corporation's (ONGC) decision to reject a bid for failure to submit a valid Goods and Services Tax registration certificate at the time of bidding, holding that an Application Reference Number (ARN) cannot substitute a GST certificate in tender processes. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt. Ltd., said: “An ARN is only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, whereas a GSTIN is granted only upon due verification and approval under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, an ARN cannot, in law, be equated with a valid registration certificate.”
Case Title : Kanika Exports v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12512/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 393
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the determination of the “relevant date” for computing limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) depends on the nature of the refund claimed, and that the 2019 amendment to the provision cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat vested rights of taxpayers. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with petitions challenging rejection of refund claims for unutilised input tax credit (ITC) on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : Sandeep Kumar v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4502/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 399
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed writ petitions challenging adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, holding that non-communication of an order extending time for adjudication does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul relied on Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs where it was held that although as a matter of prudence the Customs Department ought to intimate the grant of extension to the concerned parties, non-communication thereof would not, by itself, constitute a fatal error, since Section 28 of the Customs Act does not stipulate communication of such extension as a mandatory pre-condition to its validity.
Case Title : Akee International v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5063/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 400
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to direct a third re-test of goods under Customs proceedings, holding that such a request cannot be insisted upon at the mere instance of a party and that the decision lies within the discretion of the adjudicating authority, particularly where two test reports are already on record. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter seeking the quashing of a show cause notice and a direction for re-testing of seized shawls allegedly containing prohibited material.
Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Unserved SCN
Case Title : NHD Motors v. GNCTD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17505/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 401
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the show cause notice (SCN) was not effectively served on the assessee, holding that a reminder issued in respect of such an SCN cannot be treated as a valid communication. A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus set aside a GST demand order after finding that the SCN had not been properly communicated to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Order Despite Delay In Filing Writ, Cites Denial Of Hearing
Case Title : Sun International Limited v. The Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 402
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was not given an opportunity of hearing, even though the writ petition was filed belatedly A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul set aside a GST demand order passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while imposing costs and granting conditional relief to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Quashes State GST Order Citing Overlapping Proceedings With CGST Authority
Case Title : Maa Jagdambe Engineering Works v. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3635/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 410
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the State GST Authority against an engineering firm, holding that in the facts of the case, where proceedings had already been initiated earlier by the Central GST authority and involved overlapping entities, the State authority ought not to have proceeded further having regard to the mandate of Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a challenge to an order dated December 18, 2025, passed by the State GST officer based on a demand-cum-show cause notice dated July 2, 2025.
Case Title : Radha Rani Metal v. Principal Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1180/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 411
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the GST Department against an earlier ruling restricting retrospective cancellation of a firm's GST registration. The court observed that in the facts of the case, the Department, having chosen to invite a decision on merits instead of withdrawing the defective show cause notice and seeking liberty to issue a fresh one, could not subsequently seek to reopen the issue in review jurisdiction.
Case Title : Ramada Engineering Industry v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1036/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 422
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the bar on parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies only where proceedings by State and Central GST authorities relate to the same subject matter and not where they pertain to different financial years or distinct infractions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order confirming tax demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018–2019.
Case Title : Nand Kishor Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5444/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 423
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a gold chain under the Customs Act, 1962, reiterating that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to bypass an available statutory remedy of appeal. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed the petition filed against an order confiscating a 100-gram gold chain from the Petitioner on his return to India from Bangkok.
Case Title : Holoflex Ltd & Anr v. UoI
Case Number : LPA 314/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 430
The Delhi High Court has recently held that export incentives under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme cannot be denied solely on the ground that the exporter failed to furnish a Bill of Export (BOE), where there is otherwise sufficient evidence of supply of goods and receipt of payment. A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while dismissing a review petition filed by the Union of India challenging an earlier judgment granting EPCG benefits to Holoflex Ltd.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Customs SCNs On AIFTA Benefits For Copper Imports
Case Title : Rajasthan Metals v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11126/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 431
The Delhi High Court has dismissed as premature petitions challenging show cause notices denying duty benefits under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement on copper imports from Vietnam for allegedly failing the 35% value addition requirement. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held that the petitions were not maintainable at this stage, noting that the challenge was to show cause notices which initiate adjudicatory proceedings and do not conclusively determine rights.
Delhi High Court Declines GST Refund Challenge In Writ, Says Appeal Lies Before GSTAT
Case Title : Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19358/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 432
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging rejection of GST refund claims, holding that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by Mahanadi Exporttek Private Limited assailing an appellate order that had upheld rejection of its refund claims aggregating over Rs. 4 crore under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court Directs Release of Seized Gold, Notes Redemption Relief Already Granted
Case Title : HARISH KUMAR VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12711/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 463
The Delhi High Court has directed Customs authorities to release seized gold after noting that an individual passenger had already been granted redemption of the goods in appeal, which was affirmed in revision. A bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the petitioner, Harish Kumar, had secured substantial relief through the appellate process, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Authority.
Case Title : Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17500/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 474
The Delhi High Court on Friday reiterated that education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to foreign universities would not qualify as “intermediary services” under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and would instead constitute export of services eligible for GST refund. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹2.63 crore.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Tax On Agricultural Income, Says Issue Lies with Legislature
Case Title : Aakash Goel v. GNCTD
The Delhi High Court has held that Courts cannot issue directions compelling the legislature or executive to enact a law, including for taxation of agricultural income, and dismissed a public interest litigation seeking such relief. A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia dismissed the petition as “highly misconceived” and held that no mandamus can be issued to direct legislation on taxation of agricultural income. The judges said: "We cannot issue a mandamus asking them to legislate."
Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Rubber-Stamped' PRC Orders Rejecting Exporter's Duty Relief Claim
Case Title : O.C. Sweaters LLP v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8336/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 504
The Delhi High Court has set aside three Policy Relaxation Committee orders rejecting O.C. Sweaters LLP's request to count two export shipments under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The court held that the authorities mechanically rejected the case without meaningfully considering the exporter's contention that a technical glitch prevented it from availing the scheme benefit. “the orders passed by the concerned authorities are merely mechanical in nature and amount to rubber-stamping, without reflecting any independent application of mind,” the Court observed.
Mere Concealment Of Gold Not Enough To Prove Customs Duty Evasion: Delhi High Court
Case Title : UoI v. Hemant Kumar Ishwar Dass Singhvi
Case Number : CRL.A.1503/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 522
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of smuggling gold into India, holding that mere concealment of gold was insufficient to establish fraudulent evasion of customs duty when the passenger was intercepted before he could proceed through customs clearance. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging the acquittal of a Mumbai-based passenger who was found carrying 30 gold biscuits weighing 3496.400 grams concealed in a waist belt at Delhi's IGI Airport in 1991.
Landlord Cannot Recover Service Tax From Tenant Without Express Clause In Lease: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Tannia Rikhy & Ors. v. Sunrider India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : RFA 32/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 532
The Delhi High Court has on Thursday held that a landlord cannot recover service tax from a tenant in the absence of an express covenant in the lease deed imposing such liability on the tenant. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by landlords against a decree directing refund of ₹5.53 lakh deducted from the tenant's refundable security deposit towards alleged service tax dues. The dispute arose between Sunrider India Pvt Ltd and the landlords in relation to a commercial premises in the city's Vasant Vihar area, leased under an agreement dated August 28, 2006.
Delhi High Court Protects IndiGo From Coercive Action In ₹458 Crore GST Dispute
Case Title : InterGlobe Aviation Limited v. Additional Commissioner CGST South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7271/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz Del HC 547
The Delhi High Court on Friday protected InterGlobe Aviation, which operates India's largest airline IndiGo, from coercive action over a ₹458.26 crore goods and services tax (GST) demand linked to compensation received from a foreign engine supplier. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul issued notice to the GST department and granted interim protection to the airline after observing that, prima facie, the amount received by IndiGo appeared to be “compensation”, and not “supply”.
Case Title : Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2341/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 553
The Delhi High Court on May 20 quashed a customs communication issued to Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. indicating differential duty liability of ₹3.20 crore, after the Customs Department stated that it would issue a show cause notice within four weeks. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul noted, “In consideration of the statement made by Mr. Naushad for issuance of a show cause notice within four weeks, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 12.12.2025, with no finding on impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 owing to Mr. Naushad‟s statement as recorded in our order dated 16.04.2026.”
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
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Based On Investigative Dictation Alone: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ankit Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/875/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 5
The Gauhati High Court on 17 February, held that cancellation of GST registration cannot be sustained when it is based on vague allegations and issued at the behest of the investigating wing, without independent application of mind by the proper officer. A Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury allowed a writ petition was filed by Ankit Choudhary, sole proprietor of Ankit Enterprises, challenging a show cause notice, the subsequent order cancelling his GST registration, and the order rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation.
Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded Solely Based On Form 26AS Data Without Inquiry: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Customs v. M/s Numal Saikia
Case Number : C.Ex.App./7/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 8
The Gauhati High Court on 20 February, held that the Revenue Department cannot demand Service Tax from a taxpayer, solely on the basis of information provided in Form 26AS. The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan heard an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Dibrugarh, against a CESTAT Kolkata order that had set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 6,39,09,190 imposed on a contractor.
GST Summary Notice Cannot Replace Statutory Show Cause Notice: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Md. Shoriful Islam v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 471/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 6
The Gauhati High Court has held that a summary of a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under the GST law. Justice Soumitra Saikia quashed the order dated August 29, 2024, issued against the taxpayer, Md. Shoriful Islam, under the GST regime after observing that the tax authorities had only issued a summary of the show cause notice along with an attachment containing the determination of tax.
Case Title : M/s Apurba Enterprise & Anr v. State of Assam & Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/1216/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 9
The Gauhati High Court has directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where a taxpayer is willing to furnish pending returns and clear dues, observing that cancellation entails “serious civil consequences.” Justice Anjan Moni Kalita held that if the taxpayer complies with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders. The case arose from a writ petition filed by Apurba Enterprise challenging cancellation of its GST registration dated December 7, 2019 under Section 29 of the CGST/AGST Act, along with withholding of contractual dues.
Case Title : Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/956/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 10
The Gauhati High Court has held that where GST registration is cancelled for non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and clears tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may consider dropping the cancellation proceedings in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences, and therefore, if the taxpayer complies with the statutory requirements, the authorities should consider restoration of registration in accordance with law.
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
GST Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Limitation Period Cannot Be Condoned: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Agrawal Enterprises v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 386 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 10
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal against a demand order on the ground of limitation, clarifying that a High Court cannot condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed by the statute. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed an appeal by M/S. Agarwal Enterprises and cautioned that taxpayers are required to remain vigilant and regularly verify orders uploaded on the GST portal.
GST Appeal Limitation Starts From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Order: Gujarat High Court
Recently, the Gujarat High Court clarified that when a rectification application is filed, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act runs from the date of disposal of the rectification application, not the original order. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted the delay in adjudication where a rectification application against an original order dated 12 August 2024 was filed on 5 November 2024, to be decided within three months. However, the rectification application was finally disposed of on 19 March 2025.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Order, Says Mere Reference To Submissions Is Not Consideration
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Ltd. vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 12708 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 14
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order directing recovery of deficit stamp duty and fine from Metalloys Recycling Ltd, holding that the authority failed to deal with the company's written submissions before passing the decision. Allowing the Special Civil Application, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the order dated May 24, 2023 passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Valsad was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
GST Appeal Cannot Be Entertained Beyond Statutory Limit Of 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Rajanish Industries (Prop. Shah Om Jitendrakumar) vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 624 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 16
The Gujarat High Court has held that delay in filing an appeal against cancellation of GST registration cannot be condoned beyond the statutory maximum period of 120 days (3+1 months) prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, in a judgment dated 22 January 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajesh Industries, a proprietorship firm, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to override legislative timelines.
Case Title : Niket Bipinbhai Patel Through Power Of Attorney Holder vs. Bipinbhai Madhavbhai PATEL vs. Assistant Commissioner (A.E.) CGST-Central Excise Vadodara-II Commissionerate
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 18068 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 18
The Gujarat High Court has held that Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which blocks input tax credit on goods or services used for construction of immovable property on one's own account, did not apply in a case where the taxpayer had only transferred leasehold rights and had undertaken no construction activity. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Act and directed the department to unblock Rs. 98,11,678 lying in the electronic credit ledger of a Non Resident Indian engaged in transfer of leasehold rights.
Re-Export Option Lapses If Redemption Fine Paid After 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Goodwill Industries vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13305 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 19
The Gujarat High Court on 6 February, held that the 120-day timeline for payment of redemption fine under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, and failure to pay within this period renders the re-export option void. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the writ petition filed by Goodwill Industries, while directing the refund of Rs. 12 lakh redemption fine and retaining the Rs. 8 lakh penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Classification Of 'Mint Orange 2022' As Industrial Input Under VAT Act
Case Title : State of Gujarat Through The Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs. Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 In R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court has held that 'Mint Orange 2022' is classifiable as an industrial input under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, clarifying that household use does not prevent a product from being treated as an industrial input when its composition and primary use are industrial in nature. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Department, holding that the product qualifies as an aromatic chemical and compound under Entry 226 of Schedule II, covered by Entry 42A relating to industrial inputs.
Order Passed In Fraud Proceedings Cannot Be Reclassified To Avail Amnesty Scheme: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : R B Pandey And Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central CGST and Central Excise Division
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 8054 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court held that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 involving allegations of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be converted into a non-fraud order under Section 73 merely to enable the taxpayer to claim relief under the GST Amnesty Scheme, in the absence of documentary evidence disproving such allegations. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, by its order dated 13 February 2026, rejected the plea of R.B. Pandey and Sons, the taxpayer, who sought conversion of a GST demand of Rs. 79,34,968 from Section 74 to Section 73 of the CGST Act, and upheld the demand after finding that the taxpayer had failed to produce invoices, returns or other supporting records.
Case Title : Ashland India Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 23
The Gujarat High Court has restored over Rs.1.29 Crore rebate claim of a merchant exporter, holding that the absence of original ARE-1 forms cannot defeat a rebate claim when export and duty payment are otherwise verifiable. ARE-1 stands for Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export. It was a statutory export document under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It recorded details of manufacture, duty payment, and export. Under Rule 18, the original copy was ordinarily required to be filed along with a rebate claim.
Case Title : Balkrishna Industries Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1903 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 24
The Gujarat High Court has ordered refund of Rs. 18,00,140 collected as penalty from Balkrishna Industries Limited, holding that imposition of penalty merely because an e-way bill expired during transit was unsustainable in the facts of the case. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that “In wake of such undisputed fact, the imposition of harsh penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was uncalled for and is also beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.”
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside ₹30,000 Customs Penalty On Zaveri & Co. For Wrong Regulatory Action
Case Title : Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2415 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 28
The Gujarat High Court on 24 February set aside a penalty imposed on Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for alleged violations of warehousing regulations, holding that the customs authorities had initiated proceedings under the wrong regulatory framework and failed to provide the audit report that formed the basis of the action. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by the company challenging the penalty order dated 30 December 2025 issued by the Customs Department of India.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To R.R. Exports Against HSNSC Cess Registration
Case Title : M/S. R R EXPORTS THROUGH PARTNER MR. YOGESH J JOSHI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2567 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 27
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February granted interim relief to R.R. Exports after it challenged a requirement to register its unit, operating in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025 (HSNSCA). A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi issued notice in the case while recording that: “Prima facie, we find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner.”
Case Title : Rohitkumar Parsotambhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2111 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 30
The Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to an advocate who was arrested for allegedly filing GST returns for firms that are claimed to be non-existent, fake entities. Sanghani has been booked under Sections 132 (1)(b) (whoever issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax), and 132 (1) (c) (whoever avails input tax credit using the invoice or bill referred to in clause (b) or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Input Tax Credit Transfer On Company Amalgamation Not Restricted By State: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 32
The Gujarat High Court on 5 March held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the amalgamation of companies merely because the transferor and transferee entities are registered in different States. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi heard a petition filed by Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. challenging the refusal of GST authorities to allow the transfer of ITC following the amalgamation of Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt. Ltd., following a scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 14 November 2019.
Case Title : Ashland India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 35
The Gujarat High Court on 20 February, held that a rebate of central excise duty on exported goods cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses, such as non-submission of original ARE-1 documents, when the fact of export and payment of duty is otherwise established through supporting records. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Ashland India Private Limited, setting aside orders that had rejected the company's rebate claim of Rs. 1.29 crore.
Gujarat High Court Holds GST Order Against Pacific Cyber Technology Invalid For Overlooking Reply
Case Title : Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/SCA NO. 15064/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court on 5 February set aside a GST detention and demand order passed against Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd., observing that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the company regarding delay in movement of goods due to a technical fault in the vehicle. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held: “It appears that the appellate authority has not even remotely adverted to the explanation tendered by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the same.”
Case Title : Deep International & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16799 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the seizure of imported consignments declared as “industrial oil," holding that the product was most akin to Automotive Diesel Fuel (ADF) / High Flash High Speed Diesel (HFHSD), which are restricted commodities importable only through State Trading Enterprises under the import policy. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by importers, including Deep International (petitioner), challenging the seizure of consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To Export Units In Kandla SEZ From Cess Liability
Case Title : Esskay Niryat Corporation v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 2553 of 2026
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February, held that Esskay Niryat Corporation and RR Exports operating from the Kandla Special Economic Zone (SEZ), are protected from coercive action under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, while the matter is pending before the Court. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while hearing petitions filed by the two units, granted interim relief by staying recovery steps and issued notice to the Union Government.
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside GST Order After Taxpayer's Request For Personal Hearing Was Ignored
Case Title : M/s K D Engineers v. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 16344 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 41
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an adjudication order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that failure to grant a personal hearing despite specific requests vitiates the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was dealing with a writ petition filed by K.D. Engineers challenging an order-in-original dated August 20, 2025, and a consequential demand notice.
Case Title : Atlas Dye Chem Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1106 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 42
The Gujarat High Court has held that an amendment to a customs exemption notification under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme, which allowed installation of imported machinery in the importer's “factory or premises," will apply retrospectively, and exemption cannot be denied merely because the machinery was installed outside the factory. Allowing an importer's appeal, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the benefit earlier denied due to the absence of the word “premises” must be extended after the amendment made by substitution.
Case Title : Piyush Mafatlal Shah v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14978 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 45
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an individual taxpayer, holding that reopening of assessment was uncalled for where it was based on GST proceedings that had already been set aside by the appellate authority and where no independent material existed to indicate escapement of income. “Apart from this, there is no other material which is in possession of the respondent No.1, which could prove that there has been an escapement of income and hence the reopening was necessitated. The petitioner had supplied the Appellate Order passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, the respondent authority has failed to consider the same while passing the notice dated 29.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, in view of the categorical findings by the GST Appellate Authority in the order dated 29.03.2025, the reopening of the assessment was uncalled for,” the court said.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹42 Crore GST ITC Fraud Case
Case Title : Keyur Dipakkumar Shah vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail - Before Chargesheet) No. 6472 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)46
The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Keyur Dipakkumar Shah, accused of allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) of around Rs 42 crore under GST laws, noting that he has no criminal antecedents and faces a maximum sentence of five years. “Without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail,” Justice Nikhil S. Kariel said while allowing his plea.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order For Rejecting Appeal Solely On Non-Appearance
Case Title : Sfc Global Commodity Private Limited versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 47
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a GST appellate order, holding that the Appellate Authority “has committed an illegality” by rejecting an appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance without examining the grounds raised in the appeal memo. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a writ petition filed by SFC Global Commodity Private Limited challenging the appellate order dated September 24, 2025.
Cross-State ITC Transfer Cannot Be Denied on Amalgamation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 50
The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee companies are located in different States in a case of amalgamation. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held, "The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the ground that the transferee and the transferor company are located in different states. We are of the opinion that the respondent department cannot incorporate something in a statutory form ITC-02 on GST Portal which is absent in the statutory provisions. The remark which is mentioned on the Form GST ITC-02 does not find place in the statute. Neither the statute permits nor debars the transfer of ITC after the scheme of amalgamation has been approved by the NCLT. Such an action of restricting the transfer of ITC on the on-line GST portal is de hors the intention of the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Alka Petro Global Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/TAX APPEAL NO.889 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 58
The Gujarat High Court on 15 April 2026 held that the appellate forum under the Customs Act, 1962 must be determined by the actual rank and statutory authority exercised by the adjudicating officer, and not by any incorrect or clerical mention in the order. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Department's Tax Appeal and upheld the CESTAT's order, holding that the appeal was correctly filed before the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delay In GST Appeal Condonable On Showing Sufficient Cause: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Manjulaben Vinod Patel v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17603 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 59
The Gujarat High Court on 17 April, held that a short delay in filing an appeal under the GST regime can be condoned if the appellant demonstrates “sufficient cause”, and that appellate authorities must apply their mind to the reasons instead of mechanically rejecting appeals on limitation. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Manjulaben Vinod Patel and quashed the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred.
Taxpayer Must Be Heard Even If They Opt Out Of Personal Hearing Under GST Law: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat v. State Tax Officer (4) and Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 6209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 60
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a GST demand against a registered taxpayer, holding that authorities must grant a personal hearing before passing an adverse order and cannot bypass this requirement even if the taxpayer opts out in a form. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the statutory mandate governing adjudication has to be strictly followed. The court said, “the option of no personal hearing taken by the petitioner, cannot override the effect of mandate given by the statutory provision in Section 75(4) of the GST Act.”
Case Title : Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 18080 of 2023 (Lead Matter) along with connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 61
The Gujarat High Court has on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of a GST provision that denies input tax credit to a purchaser if the supplier has not deposited the tax with the government. The court upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that entitlement to input tax credit is conditional upon actual payment of tax to the government.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar v. Officer of Deputy Conservator of Forests
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 505 of 2025 with R/Tax Appeal No. 506 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 65
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeals seeking to recover over ₹3.44 crore in service tax from the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests over charges collected from tourists visiting Gir Forest, holding that the officer was performing sovereign governmental functions and could not be treated as a tour operator. “The respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forest was discharging his sovereign function which cannot be brought within the purview of Service Tax and was not discharging any private function by acting as a Deputy Conservator of Forests. It is also not in dispute that the amount collected in his official capacity is a fee in a nature of compulsory levy which is ultimately is credited to the consolidated funds to the Government of Gujarat since the State Government is the authority which protects and conserves the Forests within its geographical territory.”
Case Title : Keyur Jayendrabhai Patel Through Jalpa Jayendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4428 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 66
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the arrest of a person accused in a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) racket, holding that while an arrestee must be furnished the “reasons to believe” forming the basis of arrest to enable a legal challenge, failure to provide a verbatim signed copy of the Commissioner's internal note does not vitiate the arrest. "Therefore, this Court, is of the opinion that the 'reasons to believe' recorded by the Commissioner has been furnished to the petitioner, facilitating him to challenge his arrest on the grounds as permissible and available to him in law.", the court observed.
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.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 3461 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)20
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has quashed a GST show cause notice issued to Amit Engineers after finding that the notice was issued despite an earlier Advance Ruling that had attained finality between the parties. A bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed: “in view of the finality attached to the Advance Ruling between the parties, the show cause notice dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) was without foundation. In view of the finality of the advance ruling between the parties, the notice is not sustainable and nothing is required to be adjudicated with respect to Advance Ruling and for existence Advance Ruling, Notice has to be treated as non-est. In such a situation, when fate of notice is apparent on face of record there will be no justification to relegate the petitioner to face proceeding on this count”.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
GST Audit Completion Does Not Bar Further Tax Proceedings for Unpaid Tax: J&K and Ladakh High Court
Case Title : Ess Ess Enterprises And Electronics v. Union of India And Others
Case Number : WP(C ) No. 1020/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (JAM) 17
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently held that completion of a GST audit does not prevent tax authorities from initiating further proceedings for unpaid or short-paid tax. Referring to section 65(7) of the CGST Act, the court observed, “A plain reading thereof makes it abundantly clear that where an audit conducted under sub-section (1) of Section 65 results in detection of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, the proper officer, i.e., the STO concerned, may initiate action under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.”
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 469 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHA)3
The Jharkhand High Court has permitted Ranchi-based manufacturer Ashirwad Food Industries to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal without making any additional pre-deposit, noting that ₹23.85 lakh had already been deposited at the first appellate stage.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar found “substance in the contention” of the petitioner and held: “Considering the deposit of Rs.23.85 lakhs already made at the first appellate stage, we agree that there would be no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2025.”
Case Title : Tata Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4397 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Jhar) 4
The Jharkhand High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Tata Chemicals Limited, Hindalco Industries Limited, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Tata Steel Limited and several other taxpayers, holding that reopening of completed VAT assessments beyond the statutory period is barred by limitation. A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the issue was already settled and that “the law is set at rest.”
GST Appeals Must Be Filed On Time, Writ Cannot Override Statutory Limitation: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title : M/s Nayan Enterprises v. Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4197 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)5
The Jharkhand High Court on 16 March held that a party cannot bypass statutory limitation by approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Statutory appeals must be filed within the prescribed period. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nayan Enterprises challenging a GST adjudication order, noting that it had failed to show “sufficient cause” for not filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
Jharkhand High Court Refuses Tata Steel's Writ Against GST Demand, Says Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2485 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)6
The Jharkhand High Court has recently refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Tata Steel Limited challenging a GST adjudication order involving alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit, holding that the company had not made out a case to bypass the statutory appellate remedy. “We are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for bypassing the alternate statutory remedy of appeal.”, the court held. A Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar underscored that the High Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum in tax matters.
Case Title : Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Limited VS The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department (now State Tax Department), Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2396 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR) 7
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on the State tax department for sitting over a VAT refund of Rs.6.71 crore for years, holding that excuses such as vacant posts and officers being on election duty are “neither legal nor satisfactory.” A Division Bench of Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, to ensure that the refund is paid with 6% annual interest by May 5, 2026, warning that any delay beyond the deadline would result in the Commissioner personally paying the additional interest from salary.
Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Against Delayed GST Order, Cites Alternative Remedy
Case Title : Sujata Udit Builders Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Taxes and Central Excise, Ranchi Zone, Patna
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 2471 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)8
The Jharkhand High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST adjudication order passed after a delay of five years, holding that the taxpayer must avail themselves of the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. A bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that where a statutory appeal is available, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Demand On Solar Plant For Lack of Personal Hearing, Remands Matter
Case Title : Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Limited vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 109976 of 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 12
The Karnataka High Court has held that the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods and input services used for setting up a captive solar power plant is unsustainable where the adjudicating authority acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, passed the order on 21 January 2026, setting aside the GST demand raised against Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Ltd. The Bench noted that once a binding advance ruling existed in favour of the taxpayer, any adverse order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing stood vitiated.
Service Tax On Ocean Freight In CIF Imports Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Konkan Specialty Poly v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 19754 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has held that service tax cannot be levied on ocean freight in imports made on a CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) basis, as such services fall outside the scope of the Finance Act, 1994. “The Act itself would be inapplicable to territories other than India and the Executive would not have the power to make rules for territories beyond India and where the events could be described to be extra territorial events i.e., service provided by a foreign exporter and a transport company which also enters into contract for transportation outside the territory of India, such extra territorial transactions cannot be the subject matter of a national law,” the court said.
Case Title : Huawei Technologies India Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a show cause notice issued to Huawei Technologies India Private Limited demanding Rs. 85.51 crore in Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), along with interest and penalty, on salaries paid to foreign national employees. Justice S R Krishna Kumar held that this was not a case of secondment at all, but one where Huawei India had a direct employer-employee relationship with the foreign nationals working for it.
Electronic Credit Ledger Cannot Be Blocked Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Jupiter Ventures v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3353 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 25
The Karnataka High Court on 25 February, held that the restriction imposed by blocking a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot continue beyond one year, and any continuation of such blocking after the statutory period is illegal. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by Jupiter Ventures challenging the action of the tax authorities in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger on 21 November 2024. The Court observed: "Rule 86A(3) clearly provides that any restriction imposed under this provision shall cease to have effect after one year from the date of imposition."
Case Title : Medizen Labs Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Writ petition no. 5225 of 2026 (T-Res)
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz HC(KAR) 35
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte GST order passed against Medizen Labs Pvt. Ltd. after noting that the adjudicating authority issued the order without considering any reply from the taxpayer. The court observed that, in the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice before the matter is decided on merits. A single-judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by the bengaluru based company challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought refund of Rs 60,60,770, which had been recovered from its bank account pursuant to the impugned order.
Case Title : Additional Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 101 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 42
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has ruled that the legality of search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, make the material collected during such proceedings inadmissible for initiating action under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved. The bench held that "The legality or otherwise of the search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, render the material gathered during such proceedings inadmissible for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 74, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved."
Case Title : M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2021 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 44
The Karnataka High Court on 9 February 2026 held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar read down Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST / KGST Rules to set aside the order denying ITC to Instakart Services Private Limited.
Pigmy Agents Are Employees, Commission Paid Them Not Subject To GST: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.100806 OF 2024 (T - RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 47
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April, held that banks engage pigmy (deposit collection) agents as employees, not independent service providers. Therefore, the commission paid to them does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST). A Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank's writ petition and quashed all show cause notices issued by GST authorities under the reverse charge mechanism. He held: “The show cause notices issued by the respondent proceed on an erroneous premise, making an attempt to describe the pigmy agents as business facilitators. The foundation of the show cause notice, in the light of the aforesaid narration, is itself infirm…. Pigmy agents employed by the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, can never be treated as business facilitators for them to be coming under the GST and the services rendered by these pigmy agents are in the course of their employment with the Bank as pigmy agents, which is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III quoted supra.”
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 110 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 52
The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory, and cannot be relaxed by tax authorities. However, in cases of genuine hardship, delay in filing refund claims may be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, subject to safeguards protecting the Revenue. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind made the ruling. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides provisions for claiming refunds of excess GST paid by a registered person.
Consolidated GST Show Cause Notices Across Multiple Years Permissible: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors v. Chimney Hills Education Society & Ors (batch matters)
Case Number : Writ Appeal Nos. 1751/2024, 1590/2024, 7/2025, 407/2026, 495/2026, 555/2026
CITATION : Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 58
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that GST authorities can issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years, settling a dispute over whether such notices must be confined to one year. The question before the court was, “Whether it would be permissible to issue consolidated/common show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act covering multiple financial years or multiple tax periods?” Answering this, a bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind held, “Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the reasons stated hereunder.”
Case Title : M/s ABE Security Mechanics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent of the Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 66
The Karnataka High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims rejected as time-barred under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must be reconsidered where GST returns for the relevant financial years were filed on or before 30 November 2021, in view of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the writ petition filed by ABE Security Mechanics Private Limited, set aside the show cause notice dated 5 December 2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 22 February 2024, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
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 Quashes Panchayat Prosecution Over Tax Dues, Reiterates Recovery Must Fail First
Case Title : General Manager, GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Secretary, Mankada Grama Panchayat & Anr.
Case Number : CRL.MC NO. 6229 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 20
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a grama panchayat against the General Manager of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. over alleged non-payment of panchayat tax in respect of mobile towers, holding that prosecution under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act can be launched only after statutory recovery proceedings are first exhausted. A Single Bench of Justice C. S. Dias allowed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the General Manager, who was the first accused in a complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna.
Kerala High Court Quashes Composite GST Notices Issued to Actor Honey Rose
Case Title : Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited v. State Of Kerala & Others (with connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) No. 15618 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 27
The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to set aside composite GST show cause notices and assessment orders issued to actor Honey Rose Varghese and several other taxpayers, holding that it was bound by earlier Division Bench rulings requiring separate proceedings for each assessment year. Allowing the batch of petitions, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that there was no stay on the earlier orders of the court and was therefore bound by it. “In this case, evidently, no stay is also obtained against the judgment in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) or Tharayil Medicals (supra). Therefore, I am bound to follow the observations and principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decisions."
Case Title : Authentic Metals v. Enforcement Officer & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 881 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 28
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that GST authorities cannot release seized goods during confiscation proceedings merely because the trader pays the fine proposed in a show cause notice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ruled that Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act permits payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation only after a final confiscation order is passed. “Mere notice to initiate confiscation proceedings will not amount to authorisation for confiscation,” the court said.
Case Title : Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 21609 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 31
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a bona fide mistake committed by a taxpayer while filing revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms cannot justify denial of transitional Input Tax Credit, especially in the absence of any allegation of tax evasion. TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 are statutory forms under Section 140 of the CGST Act through which taxpayers carried forward eligible input tax credit from the pre-GST regime into GST.
Case Title : Yaser Arafat. K v The Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : Crl. RP 162/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 33
The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge one of the accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that in the present case, statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with other materials constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial. “Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon, and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are matters to be decided after trial,” Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
GST Payable Separately On Municipal Works Contracts Unless Tender Includes It: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Ganga Constructions v. Assistant Executive Engineer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 4911 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 36
The Kerala High Court, on 12 February, held that contractors executing works for local self-government institutions are entitled to payment of GST over and above the contract value, and that such tax cannot be treated as included in the quoted rates unless the tender conditions expressly so provide. Harisankar V. Menon stated that once government circulars categorically mandate that tendered rates for public works are to be quoted exclusive of GST, the municipality cannot subsequently treat GST as included in the quoted contract value or seek recovery of amounts already paid on that basis.
Denial Of Input Tax Credit Limited To Depreciated Portion: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 23546 of 2024, 24348 of 2025 and 29087 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 46
The Kerala High Court on 18 February clarified that Section 16(3) of the CGST Act bars input tax credit only on the part of a capital good's tax component where depreciation is claimed, not on the whole tax component. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A quashed the show-cause notices issued to banking companies that had denied input tax credit on the entire tax component solely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion.
GST Show Cause Notice Cannot Proceed On Preconceived Conclusion Of Liability: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association (KSSBCMA) v. Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 9108 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 56
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice issued to the Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association after finding that the notice was worded in a manner suggesting a pre-conceived conclusion on the petitioner's liability. The court held that a show cause notice can contain only a proposal based on the material on record and that a final conclusion can be reached only after considering the assessee's objections and documents.
Earthen Roofing Tiles By Khadi Board-Recognised Unit Qualify For VAT Exemption: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya v. State of Kerala
Case Number : OT.REV NO. 30 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 60
The Kerala High Court on 12 March held that earthen roofing tiles manufactured by a unit recognised and financed by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board are eligible for tax exemption as “pottery” under the KVAT Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji set aside tax demands raised against Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing clay products in Thrissur.
Case Title : Muhammed Ali Haji P.P. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 20625, 20672, 20745 & 20753 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 63
The Kerala High Court on 3 March quashed a customs confiscation order involving 25 kilograms of gold, holding that denying the petitioners an effective opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, sitting as a Single-Judge Bench, allowed writ petitions challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Customs authority, which had confiscated the gold and imposed penalties. He observed: “The denial of opportunity caused prejudice to the petitioners” and the proceedings “cannot be treated as the proper compliance of the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title : Kerala Gramin Bank v. Saifudheen M and Ors
Case Number : OP(C) No. 2628 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 68
The Kerala High Court has held that a hypothecation agreement executed to secure a loan attracts stamp duty as a general agreement under Article 5(g) of the Kerala Stamp Act and not as a pledge or mortgage, which attracts higher duty. Clarifying the position, the court said Article 6 of the Act applies only to pledges. “Article 6 of the Act will get attracted only if the instrument in question is a 'pledge'. On a conspectus reading of the agreement of hypothecation, it is evident that the possession of the vehicle is still with the borrower. If that be so, it passes one's comprehension as to how the deed of hypothecation will qualify as an instrument of pledge".
Conditional Land Tax Acceptance Unsustainable Without Civil Court Adjudication: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C)NO.20484 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 72
The Kerala High Court on 5 March held that the State cannot impose conditions while accepting land tax that create a cloud over title, as such disputes require adjudication by a competent civil court and cannot be decided through administrative endorsements. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S set aside the condition in Order G.O.(Ms.)No.172/2019/Rev. dated 6 June 2019 and declined to direct unconditional acceptance of land tax, while permitting the petitioner to approach the competent authority with proper applications for consideration under the applicable statutory framework.
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
MP High Court Sets Aside Commercial Tax On Diamond Cement For Sale Of Food In Factory Canteen
Case Title : Diamond Cement v. Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 27748 of 2003
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 27
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has, applying settled law, set aside the levy of commercial tax on subsidised food supplied in a factory canteen run as a statutory welfare measure in a 1995–96 assessment involving Diamond Cement, while upholding the rest of the demand. The court, however, upheld tax liability on scrap sales, coal purchases, and denial of set-off on certain items. The bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, partly allowed the writ petition filed by M/s Diamond Cement challenging the assessment for the year 1995–96 under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994.
Case Title : Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 2510 of 2026 and 2532 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a GST demand of Rs. 7.01 crore could not be sustained as it was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Indore, who lacked jurisdiction in the absence of a GST Council-backed authorisation. A bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi set aside the order passed against a firm, Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar. “The impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed, being an order by an incompetent authority.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail To Tobacco Trader Accused Of ₹3.32 Crore Excise Duty Evasion
Case Title : Vikash Gupta v. Union of India
Case Number : MCRC No. 19184 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 36
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has recently refused bail to a tobacco trader accused of evading around ₹3.32 crore in central excise duty by allegedly concealing tobacco packing machines and illegally manufacturing tobacco products. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta observed that the trader's claim that one of the two machines found during the search was non-functional could not, at this stage, weaken the prosecution case. “Mere oral assertion during search proceedings that the machine was not operational cannot prima facie dislodge the prosecution case at the stage of bail.”, it observed.
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
Police Security Services Exempt From Service Tax Prior To June 2012: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate vs. UOI
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos. 5591 & 5592 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 39
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea seeking service tax exemption for police guard charges and escort duties, holding that such activities carried out by the State Police do not fall within the service tax net prior to 1 June 2012. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer, in a judgment delivered on 12 December 2025, examined service tax liability by referring to the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 42
On Wednesday, the Madras High Court held that affiliation fees collected by universities from affiliated colleges are liable to GST and are not exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). A Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan delivered the ruling. The judges were hearing a writ petition filed by Bharathidasan University, challenging the GST demand notices issued for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-23.
Case Title : Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.1938 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 44
The Madras High Court recently ruled that a show cause notice under Section 74A of the GST law can be validly issued for F.Y. 2024-25 on the basis of discrepancies noticed in monthly returns, without awaiting the filing of the annual return. Section 74A of the GST Act, applicable from FY 2024-25 onwards, governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised.
Case Title : Dharmaraj vs. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.No.2921 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.2370 and 3271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 45
The Madras High Court has directed GST authorities to adjudicate a show cause notice proposing to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu but ordered that implementation of the assessment order shall remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. Justice C. Saravanan was hearing a petition challenging Show Cause Notice dated September 29, 2025. The notice proposes to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the State.
Duty-Free Import Benefits Denied Over Unauthorised Diversion, Poor Record-Keeping: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Regin.P
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)Nos.571, 572, 573 & 574 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 47
The Madras High Court on 10 February, held that duty-free import benefits under the Advance Authorisation Scheme can be denied when the importer diverts the goods into the domestic market without authorisation. A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima allowed the Department's appeals, arising from a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Department) against the proprietor of Regin Agency, and Regin Exports.
Case Title : Virbac Animal Health India Pvt., Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP No. 27739 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 56
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that differential customs duty voluntarily paid during a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation cannot be claimed as a refund. The Court further held that Notification No. 25/2019-Customs amended the applicable customs duty rate by treating shrimp larvae feed in both pellet and non-pellet form as attracting 5% basic customs duty. The notification cannot be applied retrospectively to imports made prior to its issuance.
No Service Tax Exemption Where Overriding Commission Is Received In INR: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Translanka Air Travels Pvt Ltd v. M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 2873 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 59
The Madras High Court held that travel agents acting as General Sales Agents (GSAs) for foreign airlines cannot claim service tax exemption as an export of services when their overriding commission is received in Indian Rupees rather than convertible foreign exchange, even if the services are provided to foreign principals. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar held that exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and the condition requiring receipt in foreign exchange is mandatory.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities From Colleges Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court has held that affiliation fees collected by universities from colleges are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court ruled that such services do not fall within the GST exemption for services relating to the admission of students or the conduct of examinations. The Division Bench comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan answered a reference arising from writ petitions filed by Bharathidasan University challenging GST notices issued by the State tax authorities.
Madras High Court Upholds Same-Month ISD Credit Rule Under CGST, Dismisses Reliance Jio's Challenge
Case Title : Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP No s .27038
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 69
The Madras High Court on 5 March upheld the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates that an Input Service Distributor (ISD) must allocate tax credits within the same month in which an invoice is received. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, challenging the provision governing the timing of distribution of Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.
Case Title : M/s.Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 95
The Madras High Court has held that where the Department appropriates amounts during the pendency of an appeal against a Excise duty demand despite a subsisting stay order, such amounts must be treated as paid under protest, and a refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. The bench stated that "If the revenue is permitted to adopt such novel ways to adjust the amounts by getting over an order of stay and thereby indirectly recovering the money, it cannot be construed as a duty payable as on the date of such appropriation."
Madras High Court Holds Cut Tobacco Processed With Jaggery Water Is Unmanufactured Tobacco
Case Title : Arumugam v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.A.(MD) No.1988 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 109
The Madras High Court has recently held that cut tobacco processed by curing with jaggery water and sold in cut form would be classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco, setting aside advance rulings that had described it as manufactured chewing tobacco and subjected it to a higher compensation cess under GST. The court set aside the rulings of the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, as well as a single judge's order that had upheld the description of the product as manufactured chewing tobacco.
Madras High Court Quashes GST Demand On GAIL, Says No Recovery If Tax Already Paid
Case Title : Gail (India) Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.13152 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 110
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a show cause notice issued to GAIL (India) Ltd. under Section 76 CGST Act, holding that recovery proceedings cannot be sustained where the tax collected has already been remitted to the Government, even if paid through another GST registration of the same entity. The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that, “Section 76 of the CGST Act is clear and simple. Any person collecting any money as tax cannot retain it for himself, even if the tax is not chargeable. Ultimately, it is the person who wrongfully bore the incidence of tax who is entitled to a refund, and the person who collects has no say. Thus, neither is the tax amount wrongly collected, nor is it wrongfully retained.”
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Orion Enterprises
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1327 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 124
The Madras High Court has held that an importer cannot escape penalties for misdeclaration and use of false documents merely by opting to re-export the goods after detection. "The order of re-export on payment of redemption fine will not absolve the penal consequence envisaged under the Customs Act, 1962. If this proposition of the CESTAT is to be approved, then all illegal importers, if caught, will offer to pay a paltry sum as fine in lieu of redemption of the goods and re-export the same without suffering any penalty or custom duty for their attempt to violate the Customs Act, 1962” the court said.
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.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹ 85 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title : Pravash Chandra Mishra v. Union of India (CGST)
Case Number : BLAPL No. 9957 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 8
The Orissa High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case, where he was alleged to have fraudulently availed Rs. 85 crores of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy was hearing the accused, who was being prosecuted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, under provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Case Title : Rajendra Narayan Mohanty v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.2271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 13
The Orissa High Court at Cuttack held that tax authorities cannot retain amounts deposited twice under a mistaken belief, as such retention would violate Article 265 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside an order rejecting the refund claim filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Narayan Mohanty, and allowed him to seek a fresh refund.
No Fresh GST Demand For Same Amount Without Credit For Reversed ITC: Orissa HC Sets Aside Tax Demand
Case Title : M/s. Manoja Kumar Nayak v. Commissioner Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.12682 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 19
The Orissa High Court has set aside GST proceedings against an individual taxpayer, holding that once input tax credit (ITC) is reversed, the tax department cannot demand the same amount again without giving due credit for such reversal. “Once it is conceded by the Revenue that the amount of input tax credit for a sum of Rs.4,39,970/- has been reversed, raising demand to the same without giving due credit to such reversal is unethical and without authority of law. In such an event, since net tax effect would be 'zero', thereby no penalty would be imposable. This Court, therefore, would show indulgence in the matter as the Adjudicating Authority has traversed his jurisdiction by acting at his whims and fancies,” the Court said.
Patna HC
Case Title : ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5664 of 2026 connected with CWJC Nos. 5870 of 2026 and 5962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 10
The Patna High Court has recently refused to quash multiple Central Excise show cause notices issued to ITC Limited, holding that the company could not seek quashing solely on the ground of delayed adjudication when it had not participated in hearings despite repeated opportunities. “For one reason or another, the petitioner did not participate in the hearing. In such circumstances, prima facie, we agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the Central Excise that the delay in the adjudication cannot be solely attributed to the department.”
IOCL's Terminal Facilities For Crude Oil Storage At Barauni Attract Service Tax: Patna High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise and Services Tax Patna v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Barauni Refinery, Begusarai, Bihar.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2019.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 13
The Patna High Court has held that terminal facilities used by IOCL's Barauni Refinery for storing crude oil before onward transportation constituted an independent taxable service liable to service tax, and were not merely incidental to pipeline transportation. The court ruled, “If MOU creates a provision of a separate charge for 'discharge facility' or 'terminal facilities' or 'storing of crude oil' before entering into next phase of transportation for Bongaigaon Refinery then, it cannot be said the integral part or incidental part of pipeline transportation.”
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Knight Fly Boyz v. Officer of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : CWP-17615-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 5
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand orders raised against a manpower services firm, holding that its allegation that a Chartered Accountant misappropriated tax payments raised disputed questions of fact and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance to bypass the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri noted that the petitioner had itself authorised the Chartered Accountant to handle its GST compliance.
Case Title : Swastika Insulation through its Prop., Sh. Kunal Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others
Case Number : CWP 23675 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 7
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the Punjab tax department from taking coercive recovery action against a proprietorship firm over a legacy VAT demand, after the state told the court that the assessment record had been destroyed in a fire. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri recorded the State's submission that the assessment order against Swastika Insulation was not available with the department, as the record was “stated to have been burnt.”
Additional VAT Surcharge Valid Over Concessional Tax: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : M/s Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and Others
Case Number : VATAP-83-2018 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 11
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 27 February, held that an additional VAT surcharge under Section 7A can be levied over and above the concessional tax payable under Section 7 on sales of declared goods made to registered dealers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. challenging assessment and appellate orders passed under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Case Title : Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CWP-19113-2024 (with CM-2828-CWP-2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 14
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 26 February set aside a show cause notice seeking GST on tariff petition and licence fees collected by the Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, holding that these fees arise from statutory regulatory functions and are not in the course of business. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice, observing: “Learned counsel for respondents points out that review has been preferred against order dated…. However, it is conceded that there is no stay in the matter; in fact, notice has also not been issued therein.”
Valid GST Notice Must Disclose Details And Basis of Liability: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner
Case Number : CWP-4495-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 19
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 April held that a GST show cause notice lacking specific allegations, supporting material, and proper reasoning is legally unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Alka Sarin set aside a show cause notice issued to Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Before raising a demand, the purpose of putting an assessee to notice, is to make the assessee aware of the department's intent to enable the assessee to effectively respond. A vague notice does not fulfil such object. Serving of a non-specific notice is nothing but an empty formality which does not fulfil the afore object and is even otherwise, violative of the principles of natural justice.”
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
Case Title : MR Traders v the Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4558/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that a GST appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond one additional month after the expiry of the three-month statutory period for filing an appeal, even if sufficient cause is shown. Setting out the law, the court ruled that Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits the Appellate Authority to condone delay only up to one month and that it can't take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend that period further.
Case Title : Hazi A.p Bava and Company v. Commissioner, Central Excise And Goods And Service Tax
Case Number : D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 17744/ 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 7
The Rajasthan High Court has recently set aside a service tax demand raised nearly nine years after issuance of show cause notices, holding that revival of proceedings after prolonged administrative dormancy amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and defeats the statutory discipline prescribed under the Finance Act. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit quashed an order dated October 24, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur.
Case Title : J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6501/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 9
The Rajasthan High Court has recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against JK Lakshmi Cement Limited over alleged VAT liability arising from diesel supplied to transport and mining contractors, holding that the company must respond to the tax authorities and raise its objections during the ongoing assessment inquiry. The dispute arose after the Commercial Taxes Department conducted a survey and investigation into the operations of the cement manufacturer.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v Ceramic Tableware
Case Number : D.B. Custom Appeal No. 7/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that amendments in the Bill of Entry can be made even after a search is conducted, and such amendments cannot be refused merely because the error was detected by the department and not disclosed suo motu by the importer. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma said that the purpose of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to ensure proper assessment and that the power to allow amendment must be exercised reasonably.
Rajasthan High Court Defreezes Accounts As GST SCN Only Uploaded On Portal, Never Served
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5272/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has directed de-freezing of the bank accounts of business entities and their proprietors from Sawai Madhopur after noting their submission that the SCN concerning their GST liability was only uploaded on the portal without being served through any other prescribed mode. Granting interim relief, a division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal said it would be just and proper to allow operation of the accounts, subject to the deposit of 10% of the total recovery amount, if not already deposited.
Case Title : M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Energy Department
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1151/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has held that electricity duty exemption on captive consumption of solar power promised under the Solar Policy, 2019 cannot be withdrawn retrospectively so as to divest accrued rights, ruling that UltraTech Cement Ltd. and other petitioners are entitled to the benefit for projects commissioned prior to the amendment. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal delivered the judgment.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds GST Penalty Order Despite Absence Of DIN, Says RFN Is Sufficient
Case Title : Mahesh Trivedi v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 15
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a GST order communicated through statutorily recognised modes such as the GST portal, registered post or e-mail cannot be invalidated merely because it does not mention a Document Identification Number (DIN), where the communication carries a verifiable Reference Number (RFN). “Once service has been effected in any of the recognised statutory modes, we are of the view that the requirement of lawful communication clearly stands satisfied,” a division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed.
Rajasthan VAT Act Permits Search Of Residential Premises In Tax Evasion Cases: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Anil Sugar Candy Works v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12887/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act does not prohibit searches at residential premises, provided the statutory requirements for search and seizure are strictly fulfilled. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal referring to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 observed, “Thus, the statute does not prohibit search of residential premises as such; however, the exercise of such power is conditioned upon strict fulfillment of the statutory requirements.”
Case Title : Balaji Exports v Union of India And Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4870/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 18
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed parallel GST proceedings and recovery action against a Jaipur-based exporter after finding prima facie that tax authorities may have initiated duplicate proceedings for the same financial year. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta issued notice to the department and observed that under the GST law, only one proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter.
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 : Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 6668 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 9
The Telangana High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd., recording the State's statement that seized documents whose originals are missing will not be relied upon in adjudication, while permitting proceedings to continue on the basis of available material. A Bench of Chief Justice Apresh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed that once the State clarified that such missing documents would not be relied upon, the grievance of the petitioner stood addressed and adjudication could proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title : Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE)
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos.9166 and 9354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 13
The Telangana High Court on 8 April, held that a single, composite GST liability order against a company and its Managing Director cannot be used to deny them independent appellate remedies. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin allowed writ petitions filed by Sugna Metal Limited and its Managing Director, and directed tax authorities to issue separate orders. The judges held: “...,the Managing Director (petitioner in W.P.No.9166 of 2026), after obtaining a temporary registration, is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal and take all such grounds on facts and in law as are available to him…”
Telangana High Court Refuses Challenge To Arrest Of Fino Payments Bank CEO In ₹840 Crore GST Case
Case Title : Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. No.6657 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 18
The Telangana High Court has upheld the arrest of Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Nand Kishore Gupta in an alleged ₹840 crore GST evasion case, holding that the 24-hour safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not violated and observing that his contention of being in custody prior to arrest did “not merit acceptance.” Dismissing his writ petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin held that Gupta was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest.
Revenue Cannot Demand Interest On Delayed Duties Yet Deny It On Refund: Telangana High Court
Case Title : Virchow Laboratories Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise
Case Number : CEA.No. 195 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 21
The Telangana High Court recently held that the Revenue is bound to compensate a taxpayer for amounts wrongfully collected and retained as interest on alleged central excise duty liability arising from a customs notification, even where such amounts were recovered under an amnesty scheme. The court said, “the Revenue cannot act in contradicting ways, i.e., on one hand demanding interest from the assessee for the delay in payment of duties and on other hand refusing to pay interest on the amount that was wrongly collected. This would be unfair and unjust, on the part of the Department, since the delay was caused entirely by the Revenue retaining the funds and they are bound to compensate the assessee.”
Case Title : M/s. Airan Comtrax Towers (P) Ltd. and 2 others v. The Superintendent, Additional Bench, Customs & Central Excise, Settlement Commission, Customs House, Chennai and another
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.6376 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 27
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd., upholding the rejection of its settlement application on the ground that it failed to make a full and true disclosure of its duty liability. A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was dealing with a challenge to the order dated February 28, 2008 passed by the Settlement Commission.
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.
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Nimai Kar v. The State of Tripura
Case Number : WP(C) No.167 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 3
The High Court of Tripura has directed the State authorities to reimburse Rs. 2.21 crore along with 12% interest to a government contractor, holding that taxes paid under the GST regime must be refunded where the contract expressly provides for such reimbursement. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sri Nimai Kar, a Class-I government contractor, who had undertaken a road construction project pursuant to a tender issued on 20.03.2017 by the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Tripura.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title : Bajaj Auto Limited v. Commissioner of Uttarakhand, State GST & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 130 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 4
The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited challenging a GST adjudication order, holding that the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the GST Act. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay noted that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, in such circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
Uttarakhand High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Same Day As Reply, Calls Hearing An “Eyewash”
Case Title : M/s Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner & another
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 286 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 6
Observing that passing an adjudication order on the very same day as filing of reply without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, the High Court of Uttarakhand set aside GST demand and penalty proceedings against Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, stated that the mere recording of a hearing on the date of filing a reply does not satisfy the requirement of a fair opportunity.
Uttarakhand High Court Strikes Down Water Tax On Hydropower, Calls It Tax On Electricity Generation
Case Title : T.H.D.C. India Ltd through its CMD v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
Case Number : SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 7
The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down a state law that required hydropower companies to pay a tax for using river water to generate electricity, holding that the levy was effectively a tax on electricity generation, which the State cannot impose. Deciding on a reference arising from an earlier split verdict, Justice Alok Kumar Verma opined: “It has been found in the earlier analysis that the Act imposes a tax on the generation of electricity. The State Legislature is not competent to levy tax on the generation of electricity. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the conclusion of brother Ravindra Maithani, J. that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
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
CESTAT Sets Aside Rejection Of Declared Import Value Over Inadmissible Statements, Emails
Case Title : Ajanta Overseas v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50374 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 46
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi Bench recently held that customs authorities cannot reject the declared value of imported furniture by relying on investigation statements and email printouts unless mandatory legal safeguards are followed. The coram comprised President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya. The tribunal said that statements recorded during an investigation do not automatically qualify as evidence and can be relied upon only after they pass the test of admissibility.
No Service Tax On Government-Supplied Water For Industrial Use: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Brahmani River Pellets v. Commissioner of GST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76822 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 48
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clarified that service tax is not leviable on water charges paid to the Government of Odisha for the supply of water drawn from a natural source for industrial purposes. The Tribunal ruled that such transactions amount to the supply of water and not the grant of a taxable licensing service. Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, delivered the ruling in an appeal filed by Brahmani River Pellets, a manufacturer of iron ore pellets operating a plant in Odisha.
Transfer of Development Rights Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Quashes ₹4.48 Crore Demand on Omaxe
Case Title : Omaxe Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50348 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 50
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has set aside a Rs 4.48 crore service tax demand against real estate developer Omaxe Limited, ruling that the transfer of development rights is not taxable as a service. Allowing the appeal, the tribunal relied on its earlier ruling in DLF Commercial Projects Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram. It held that “transfer of such land development rights is transfer of immovable property” under the General Clauses Act and therefore falls outside the service tax law.
Covid Customs Duty Exemption Covers Oxygen Concentrators, Not Just Ventilators: CESTAT, New Delhi
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51525 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 49
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that oxygen concentrators are eligible for exemption from customs duty under the Covid-19 relief notification issued in April 2020 and that the benefit cannot be restricted only to ventilators. Thr tribunal set aside a duty demand of Rs. 36.66 lakh raised on Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member C.J. Mathew observed that the notification granting a nil rate of duty on "artificial respiration or other therapeutic respiration apparatus (ventilators)" was intended to be read broadly, especially in the extraordinary circumstances prevailing at the onset of the pandemic.
Using Corporate Helicopter For Private Flights Breaches Customs Exemption: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 51
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the private and non-revenue use of a helicopter imported by a corporate entity defeats the basis of the customs duty exemption granted for non-scheduled passenger or charter services. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya examined a batch of cross-appeals filed by Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA) and the Customs Department against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi.
Fixing Hearing Dates Without Virtual Links Violates Natural Justice: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Meera Bux Neelgar v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50063 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 52
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when an appellate authority fixes hearing dates without providing virtual hearing links, it violates the principles of natural justice and renders the opportunity of hearing a completely nugatory, hollow formality. A Bench comprising Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Meera Bux Neelgar against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jodhpur.
Customs Cannot Arrogate Powers Under FEMA To Confiscate Currency Or Travel Cards: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Salt Experiences & Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 51745 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 47
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs officers cannot arrogate powers under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, to confiscate currency or travel cards under the Customs Act, 1962. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member C J Mathew observed that while customs officers have the authority to intercept and seize currency at airports, they cannot adjudicate matters under the Customs Act for violations that fall strictly under FEMA.
HAL Fire Extinguishers In Su30MKI Jets Are Integral Aircraft Parts Exempt From Duty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Hal Transport Aircraft Division vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50304 of 2024 With Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50872 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 53
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fire extinguishers installed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Su30MKI fighter jets qualify as integral aircraft parts and cannot be treated as stand-alone safety equipment to deny customs duty exemption. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, on 9 January 2026, set aside the differential customs duty demand of Rs. 92 lakh against HAL.
Service Tax Demand Based Solely On IT Returns Is Presumptive: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : MM Construction vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Thane
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86731 of 2023 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT (MUM) 54
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax demand based solely on differences between income tax and service tax returns is presumptive. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, on 7 January 2026, set aside a Rs. 7.05 crore service tax demand raised on MM Construction, a civil contractor engaged in road construction and drainage improvement works for municipal and government authorities.
Are Skin & Hair Care Treatments Taxable As Cosmetic Surgery? CESTAT Delhi Seeks Fresh Examination
Case Title : Trichoderm vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.50829 of 2021 with Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.50658 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 55
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 30 January, asked the lower authorities to re-examine whether skin and hair care treatments provided by a clinical establishment qualify as “Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Services” and are therefore liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was examining an appeal filed by Trichoderm, a Delhi-based clinical establishment operating under the brand name 'Medlinks'.
Coal Royalty Includible For Excise Valuation, Other Statutory Levies Excluded: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 56177 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 56
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited, holding that royalty collected on coal sales is includible in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty, but only for the normal period of limitation. The tribunal, however, set aside excise duty demands on other statutory levies and quashed the invocation of extended limitation, penalty and interest.
Case Title : Marie Products Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60693 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 60
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a central excise demand against a supari manufacturer, holding that alleged clandestine manufacture and removal could not be sustained in this case when the department relied only on electricity consumption.
A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao rejected the department's approach, observing: “We are unable to accept this submission of the department. In our view, all that the figures and calculations show is that if the production of supari in terms of electricity consumption has been as efficient during the entire period of dispute as it had been during the period 1 November 2017 to 9 November 2017, the production of supari would have been as calculated. However, the calculation does not establish that the production has, indeed, been so efficient throughout the period of dispute, and part of the supari so produced was clandestinely removed without paying duty.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Customs Exemption For IMFA Helicopter Used In Non-Revenue Flights
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 61
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has reiterated that non-revenue flights cannot qualify as air transport services for customs duty exemption. “Flight service for no remuneration at all would not qualify to be considered as air transport service,” the tribunal noted, relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. while examining the use of an imported helicopter.
Electricity Supplied To State Board Not Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 587 of 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 57
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a manufacturer is not entitled to CENVAT credit on fuel used to generate electricity that is wholly supplied to the State Electricity Board (SEB), even if an equivalent quantity of power is later received back through a synchronisation arrangement. A Bench of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed that since the electricity generated using the inputs was entirely supplied to the grid and not used in the factory, credit on such fuel was not admissible.
Bulk Imported Nutraceutical Ingredients Cannot Be Classified As "Edible Preparations": CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner, Customs New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51113 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 58
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that nutraceutical ingredients imported in bulk cannot be classified as “edible preparations” and therefore do not attract a higher customs duty. The Bench, comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 7 crore raised against Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited on allegations of misclassification of imported nutraceutical ingredients.
CESTAT Allows Nil Basic Customs Duty On Sterling Silver Jewellery Imported From Thailand
Case Title : M/s. Shri Gopal Jewellers v. Commissioner of Customs– New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50045 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 59
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently allowed a jeweller to claim nil basic customs duty on sterling silver jewellery imported from Thailand, ruling that customs authorities were wrong to deny the benefit just because the importer did not provide some information. Nil basic customs duty refers to zero customs duty payable on certain imports under applicable trade agreements.
CESTAT Mumbai Remands CENVAT Credit Refund Claim Of Software Exporter For Fresh Adjudication
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Vs M/s Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86930 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 62
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside an order granting a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit to Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to examine key factual issues bearing on the assessee's entitlement to CENVAT credit and its utilisation.
Forfeited Security Deposits And Tender Fee Do Not Attract Tax: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s RajComp Info Services Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50096 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 63
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), Security Deposit (SD) and collection of tender fee do not attract service tax, as such amounts cannot be treated as consideration for a declared service under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, allowed the appeal filed by RajComp Info Services Limited, an undertaking, wholly owned by the Government of Rajasthan, against a service tax demand confirmed for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17.
Salaries And Consultancy Reimbursements To Foreign Joint Venture Not Taxable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40027 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 65
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February held that reimbursements made by an Indian company to its overseas joint venture do not constitute consideration for taxable services and are therefore not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order dropping the service tax demand against Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer), observing that no service provider–recipient relationship existed and that the entire activity took place in a non-taxable territory.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rs. 63.36 Lakh IGST Demand On Quality Systems, Confirms Tax At 12%
Case Title : QUALITY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTS P.LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-NHAVA SHEVA – V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87915 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 64
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February set aside a demand of Rs. 63.36 lakh towards differential IGST on parts of poultry-keeping machinery, holding that payment of GST at 12% by Quality Systems and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was proper in view of subsequent CBIC clarifications. A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the company against the Order-in-Original dated 12 September 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Software Part Of Hardware Value, Reduces Duty Demand On Wipro
Case Title : M/s. Wipro (Infotech Group) v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40588 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 66
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of software supplied along with imported networking equipment by Wipro (Infotech Group) is includible in the assessable value of the hardware for the purpose of levying customs duty. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the demand to the normal period of limitation, while setting aside the extended period and penalties imposed on Wipro.
No Service Tax On Adda Fees Collected At Amritsar Bus Terminal: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Rohan And Rajdeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55340 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 67
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that adda fees collected for the use of the Amritsar bus terminal are not liable to service tax. The Bench, comprising Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical), clarified that the entire bus-terminal constructed by the Appellant could not have been built to support the business of bus operators. Bus terminals are created as a public utility service and not as support services for bus operators; hence, service tax is not leviable under Business Support Services.
Case Title : Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (RIDCOR) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51891 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 69
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside rejection of a Rs. 1.58 crore service tax refund to Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. (RIDCOR), holding that construction of public parking facilities and a government residential school was not a commercial activity. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, in its order dated 13 February 2026, held that parking projects constructed for municipal use fall within public functions under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : N. Sundar v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41441 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 68
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cashew Shell Liquid (CNSL) is eligible for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, as amended in 2006 and read with the Corrigendum dated February 28, 2006. The tribunal set aside a Rs. 3.22 lakh excise duty demand raised on the manufacturer for allegedly wrongfully availing SSI exemption on CNSL clearances.
Case Title : GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 42242 to 42245 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 70
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that companies cannot claim CENVAT credit on employee welfare services after April 1, 2011, following a statutory amendment that expressly excluded such benefits. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was deciding appeals filed by GE T&D India Ltd., a manufacturer of electrical and transmission equipment. The dispute covered April 2010 to March 2015.
CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty On Customs Broker, Says CHALR Violation Alone Insufficient
Case Title : Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs,
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58485 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 71
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a penalty imposed on a Customs Broker under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, holding that mere violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) cannot by itself justify penalty under the Act in the absence of specific allegations and material showing knowledge. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58496 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 72
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently set aside penalties of Rs 25 lakh each imposed on Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Vikas Chaudhary, holding that statements recorded by customs officers cannot be treated as relevant evidence unless the mandatory procedure under the law is followed. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta, and Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the penalties were imposed solely on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without complying with Section 138B.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Against IBM India On Warranty Expense Reimbursements
Case Title : M/s. IBM India Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Large Taxpayers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26550 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 73
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February set aside service tax demands raised against IBM India Pvt. Ltd., holding that reimbursements received from overseas IBM entities towards warranty costs, in the absence of consideration for any service, cannot be taxed under “management, maintenance or repair” service. A Bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) passed the order allowing the appeals filed by IBM India.
Case Title : Lombardini India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86157 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 75
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February allowed Lombardini India to claim CENVAT credit of Rs. 56 lakhs in a case where it had entered into an agreement with Kohler India for certain services. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that once service tax has been collected by the service provider and accepted by the Department, the credit cannot be denied to the recipient. They held: “…once the tax liability has been discharged and accepted by the department, the consequential CENVAT credit cannot be denied at the recipient's side.”
CESTAT Kolkata Affirms CBEC Circular, Reiterates Sub-Contractor Independently Liable For Service Tax
Case Title : M/s. Rigtech Power v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76246 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 74
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February clarified that after the issuance of CBEC Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23 August 2007, a sub-contractor is independently liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by it, even where the main contractor has already discharged the Service Tax liability on the same project. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, was examining the legality of invoking the extended period of limitation in a service tax demand raised against Rigtech Power, the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Service Tax Paid By Grindwell Norton Supplier
Case Title : GRINDWELL NORTON LTD VS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-THANE RURAL
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 86880 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 77
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,99,183 to Grindwell Norton Ltd., reiterating that once service tax has been paid by the service provider and accepted by the department, it cannot be questioned. A Single Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) passed the Final Order, noting that the disputed invoices were raised by the job worker under a belief that the services were taxable.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand Of Criticallog India, Holds BIS Not Required For Spare Parts
Case Title : Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50356 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 76
On Wednesday 18 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, set aside the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties that the authorities imposed on Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. for imported “Memory” and “Power Supply” items. The Tribunal held that a BIS registration does not apply to spare parts imported for warranty replacement. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, ruled that the appellate authority erred in treating the import as misdeclared and clarified that spare parts do not require BIS registration.
CESTAT Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation, Cites Contradictory Findings
Case Title : Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Case Number : Final Order No. A/85317/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 78
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai recently set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the adjudicating authority recorded contradictory findings. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.
No Service Tax Payable On Overseas Film Shooting Expenses Under Reverse Charge: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75875 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 79
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed the appeal filed by Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd., holding that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on expenses incurred in foreign currency for the shooting of films and allied activities carried outside India. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, observed that the department had raised the demand merely on the basis of figures reflected in the balance sheet under the head "expenditure in foreign currency" without identifying or classifying the specific taxable service.
Case Title : Airport Authority of India Vs Commissioner of CGST- Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52465 Of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 80
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 18 February, held that Service Tax is not leviable on Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) collected by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), as such services are not rendered entirely within the airport or civil enclave, as required under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. A Division Bench Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing AAI's appeal against confirmation of service tax demand on RNFC, Terminal Navigation Landing Charges (TNLC) and certain miscellaneous income.
Allegations Of Clandestine Removal Cannot Rely On Unauthenticated Evidence: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41116 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 81
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained in the absence of legally admissible electronic evidence and a complete chain of corroborative material. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao on 4 February 4, allowed the appeals filed by the Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director and Manager, and quashed the duty demand of Rs. 2.79 crore, along with equal penalty and consequential personal penalties.
Incorrect Tariff Classification Not Enough To Invoke Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s iValue Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 82
On 23 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods in a Bill of Entry cannot automatically lead to invocation of the extended period of limitation, confiscation of goods, or imposition of penalty in the absence of intent to evade duty. A Bench comprising the President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, partly allowed the appeal by iValue Infosolutions Private Limited, and set aside the demand raised for the extended period, along with confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Value Enhancement Based Solely On DRI Alert In Fabric Import Case
Case Title : Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86769 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 83
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February set aside the enhancement of value of imported knitted fabrics, holding that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value solely on the basis of a DRI Alert and NIDB data without following the procedure prescribed under law. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, was hearing an appeal filed by Kumar Mahendra Exim against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the re-determination of the value of the imported goods.
No Service Tax On Exempt Road, Canal Works Based Solely On TDS Deduction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Shailja Construction v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70031 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 84
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 February held that mere deduction of TDS and reflection of receipts in Form 26AS cannot determine service tax liability when the underlying activity, i.e., construction of roads and canals for Government authorities, is expressly exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary allowed an appeal by Shailja Construction, noting that the entire demand had been raised mechanically on the basis of Form 26AS entries and TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, without examining the actual nature of the services rendered.
Case Title : Price Water House Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75239 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 85
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed in a case that CENVAT credit/refund could not have been denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed. The bench consists of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided a batch of service tax appeals filed by Price Waterhouse Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the denial of CENVAT credit and refund on multiple grounds mostly technical irregularities.
Shifting Materials Within Factory Not Taxable As “Cargo Handling Service”: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Eastern Transport Agency v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70245 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 86
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February, held that shifting and transportation of materials within factory premises does not fall under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" and therefore no service tax is payable on such activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Eastern Transport Agency (taxpayer) against an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.28 crore, along with interest and penalties, for the period October 2006 to March 2011.
Service Tax Leviable On Infrastructure Support To TCS, Educational Training Exempt: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76030 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 87
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 February, confirmed service tax liability on infrastructure and allied facilities provided to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) under “Business Support Service”, while setting aside the entire demand for training and educational activities under “Management or Business Consultancy Service”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided the appeal filed by Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) (appellant), a charitable educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, against a service tax demand of Rs. 2.38 crore confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.
Customs House Agent Services To Foreign Clients Are Export, Service Tax Not Payable: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Ceva Freight India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75990 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 88
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that Customs House Agent (CHA) services rendered by an international freight forwarder to overseas customers constitute “export of service” and are not liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan heard cross appeals arising from an order passed against Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd (taxpayer), an international freight forwarder engaged in the transportation of cargo for inbound and outbound shipments.
Case Title : T T Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70574 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 89
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the facts of the case, an amount paid under protest during investigation, before any adjudication or confirmed demand, cannot be treated as “duty” but only as a deposit. It ruled that interest on such a refund is payable at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The order was passed by Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary while allowing the appeal filed by T T Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn. The dispute concerned interest on the refund of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles).
Housekeeping, Manpower Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit Post-2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Cetex Petrochemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40527 to 40529 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 90
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 February held that CENVAT credit on services such as housekeeping, gardening, pest control, manpower supply, and business membership cannot be denied merely due to the post-2011 amendment, so long as the services have a clear connection with manufacturing or business activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was hearing an appeal filed by Cetax Petrochemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of petrochemical products, against the partial denial of CENVAT credit for the period March 2014 to March 2015.
Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Machines Imported Pre-2012 Not Confiscable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Jaya Trading Company v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41557 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 91
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported before June 2012 were freely importable and not liable to confiscation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao were hearing an appeal by Jaya Trading Company. The members examined whether the rejection of the importer's appeal on limitation was legally sustainable and whether second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported prior to 5 June 2012 could be treated as restricted goods, thereby justifying confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act.
Bought-Out Optional Plywood Tops Value Not Includible In Excise Duty on Folding Cots: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shree Durga Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 76598 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 92
In partial relief to Shree Durga Industry, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that while fabrication of steel folding cots amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, the value of optional plywood tops procured from the open market cannot be added to the assessable value for levy of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing appeals filed by Shree Durga Industry and its partner Goldi Sethi against an order confirming a demand of Rs 3,32,10,665 in excise duty along with interest and penalties for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15 (up to May 2015).
Ready Rotis Classifiable as Bread, Not Ready-To-Eat Food; CESTAT Grants Nil Excise Duty
Case Title : Ready Roti India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50670 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 93
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that “Ready Roti/Halka Fulka” manufactured by Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. is classifiable as bread and not as packaged or instant food, and is therefore chargeable to a nil rate of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with an appeal against an order upholding excise duty demand, interest and penalty on the allegation that the appellant was manufacturing ready-to-eat packaged food without registration or payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.81 Crore Service Tax Demand on CII For Overseas Exhibitions
Case Title : Confederation of Indian Industry v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50606 Of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 94
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fees collected by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) from its members for facilitating participation in overseas business exhibitions are not liable to service tax under the category of “Business Exhibition Service”. The bench consists of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, was hearing an appeal filed by Confederation of Indian Industry (appellant) against an order confirming a service tax demand of over Rs. 1.81 crore along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Quashes Rs 3.47 Crore Duty Demand On Myntra Jabong, Says No Wilful Suppression
Case Title : Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55846 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 95
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Friday set aside a Rs 3.47 crore customs duty demand against Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked in a classification dispute. Allowing the appeal, The Tribunal noted that the company had deposited the entire differential duty along with interest before issuance of the show cause notice and that its failure to mention the zipper length in the imported jackets did not amount to wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.
Case Title : Gayatri Engineering v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : EXCISE Appeal No. 11170 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that MS frame parts, gland plates and MS tanks manufactured as per buyer-specific drawings for use in transformers cannot be treated as general articles of iron and steel. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential excise duty of Rs.3.69 lakhs raised against Gayatri Engineering, along with interest and penalty.
Service Tax Is Leviable On Repair Services Provided To Kolkata Metro: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. PPS International v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51505 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 February, held that repair and maintenance services rendered to the Kolkata Metro Railway are not eligible for tax exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, focussed on whether such services could be treated as exempt railway-related works and whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period to confirm the service tax demand.
No Excise Duty On Dolochar Generated During Sponge Iron Production: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75666 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 98
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 'dolochar' generated during the manufacture of sponge iron is an inevitable waste and not a manufactured excisable product. Therefore no central excise duty is payable on its clearance. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd., challenging the confirmation of excise duty along with interest and equal penalty imposed on the sale of dolochar.
No Bar On CENVAT Credit Where Supplementary Invoice Is Not Linked To Suppression: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr., CGST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 99
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February, allowed an appeal by Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit claimed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) is admissible where the additional duty arose due to an interpretational dispute and not on account of suppression or fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, which had upheld the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 23.36 lakh availed by the appellant during April 2016 to March 2017.
CESTAT Sets Aside Rs 24.96 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Contractor Based Only On TDS Statement
Case Title : M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75643 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 100
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT has set aside a service tax demand of Rs 24.96 lakh against a Chakradharpur contractor, holding that his work for the Railways, exempt subcontracted projects, and construction of single residential units did not attract service tax. The bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that a demand cannot stand if it is based solely on Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry.
Case Title : R. Rajinikanth v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40776 & 40777 of2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 102
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai on Wednesday set aside a service tax demand of about Rs 56.84 lakh against veteran Tamil actor Rajinikanth, holding that renting a building for use as a hotel is excluded from service tax under the Finance Act even if the premises contain facilities such as a restaurant, banquet hall, conference hall, bar, and health club. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed, "Their presence enhances the commercial viability of the hotel, commensurate with its category or class. While such facilities may, in certain cases, be operated by entities other than the principal lessee, they continue to function predominantly for the benefit and use of hotel guests. Importantly, the existence of the impugned facilities has not been shown to results in a bifurcation of the use of the premises nor supports the inference that the property is partly deployed for independent or distinct commercial activities. They are hence a part of the hotel."
Customs Can Levy Duty On Modular Kitchens, Not Re-Determine Value Arbitrarily: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Aran Kitchen World (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40047 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 101
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs duty is applicable to imports of modular kitchens in CKD/SKD condition, but the declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of a weight-based comparison or administrative valuation guidelines. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, examined whether the Department was justified in rejecting the declared transaction value of modular kitchen imports solely on the basis of derived weight-based comparisons and administrative valuation benchmarks, despite the absence of evidence that the relationship between the importer and its foreign joint venture partner had influenced the price.
CESTAT Allows Perrigo Lab's ₹44.72 Lakh CENVAT Credit Refund Denied Over Clerical Invoice Error
Case Title : Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Final Order No.: 85396/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 103
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed an appeal filed by Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., holding that part of its refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit was wrongly rejected due to a clerical discrepancy in invoices. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals), Thane, which had denied a refund of Rs 44.72 lakh on the ground that the original invoice supporting the claim had not been produced.
Case Title : PRIVILEGE AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 106
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi recently set aside a customs duty demand of nearly Rs 19.76 crore raised against Privilege Airways Pvt. Ltd. over the import of a Falcon 2000 aircraft. The tribunal held that an aircraft imported for non-scheduled passenger services can also be used for non-scheduled charter services under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs.
Mere Audit Detection Not Ground To Invoke Extended Limitation Under Finance Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Final Order No. 50319/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 104
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 9 March, emphasised that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of a specific allegation of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ms. Binu Tamta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a service tax demand raised against the Rajasthan Housing Board, holding that where the taxpayer had disclosed the availment of CENVAT credit in its ST-3 returns, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the issue was detected during an audit.
Minimum Import Price Not Applicable To Domestic Tariff Clearances By 100% EOUs: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Exotic Granite LLP v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10498 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 105
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 March held that the Minimum Import Price (MIP) set by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) cannot be used to increase the assessable value of goods cleared by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unless there is evidence of undervaluation. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, partly allowed Exotic Granite LLP's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch, setting aside a Rs. 3.33 crore duty demand while upholding a smaller Rs. 28.59 lakh duty.
Service Tax Fully Exempt For Rural Skill And Vocational Training Under DDU-GKY: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10557 of 2020 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, on 27 February, ruled that training services under the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) are exempt from service tax if covered by the applicable notifications. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, allowed the appeal by Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., confirming that providing skill and vocational training to rural youth under DDU-GKY was fully exempt from service tax for the relevant period.
Supply Of Water To Vessels Within Port Liable To Service Tax Before 2010 Exemption: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Sea Shipping Services v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11127 of 2017 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the supply of water to vessels within a port area forms part of “port services” and is liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to the exemption introduced with effect from July 1, 2010. The bench comprising Judicial Member Dr Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh observed that, “We therefore, agree with the arguments of learned AR duly supported by the clarification issued by CBEC vide their letter dated 09.07.2001 read with Notification No.31/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 that supply of water within the port area is covered under the category of port services and is leviable to service tax prior to 01.07.2010.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Tobacco Processing Job Work: CESTAT Hyderabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST v. M/s Premier Tobacco Packers
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30423 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 109
The Hyderabad Bench of CESTAT has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Premier Tobacco Packers, holding that service tax cannot be levied on job work relating to threshing and redrying of tobacco leaves, as the issue is already settled by earlier Tribunal rulings treating such activity as processing of agricultural produce. The bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, which had set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,66,98,271 along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : Shahnaz Ayurvedics (Dehradoon) v. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Dehradun
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50578 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 110
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the 18 disputed products manufactured by Shahnaz Ayurvedics are Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines and not cosmetics, and therefore the excise duty demand, interest and penalties raised by the Department cannot be sustained. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the mere presence of excipients or fillers cannot take a product out of the category of Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines.
GSTAT
Samsung India Anti-Profiteering Case: GSTAT Directs DGAP To Re-Examine Cost, CSD Supply Issues
Case Title : DGAP v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/38/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi has directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to re-examine certain issues in the anti-profiteering proceedings involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. after the matter had earlier been reserved for pronouncement of the final order. A bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order after considering the matter and holding a conference between the members of the bench, concluding that certain aspects required further examination by the investigating authority.
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Tata Play Limited
Case Number : NAPA/166/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 10
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) in New Delhi on 11 March directed Tata Play Ltd. to deposit Rs. 450.18 crore in the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds in a 50:50 ratio, holding that it engaged in GST profiteering. A Division Bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad concluded that the company had failed to pass on the tax benefit to consumers as mandated under the GST Anti-Profiteering law.
Case Title : Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40141 to 40143/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 111
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax cannot be levied on reimbursement of advertisement and sales promotion expenses received by Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. from its foreign group company under a cost-sharing arrangement, as such payments do not constitute consideration for any taxable service. The bench, comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., observed that although the parties are distinct legal entities capable of a service provider–service recipient relationship, no taxable service was rendered in the present case and the amounts received merely represented reimbursement of jointly incurred expenses, which cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service.
Chennai CESTAT Allows Duty Exemption For JSW Steel, Rules Belated Reports Cannot Override Notice
Case Title : M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42447 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 112
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 March held that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by relying on test reports that were not part of the Show Cause Notice, and that adjudication cannot travel beyond the allegations contained in the notice. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao set aside the demand raised against JSW Steel Ltd., holding that the imported coal satisfied the exemption conditions at the time of import.
Case Title : The Regional Manager Tobacco Board v. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 251 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 113
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that statutory fees collected by the Tobacco Board for conducting auctions of Virginia tobacco cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services and, therefore, are not liable to service tax. The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi, who observed that the Tobacco Board was performing statutory and regulatory functions under the governing legislation and the fees collected in that capacity could not be treated as consideration for a taxable service.
Land Component In Country Club Membership Fee Cannot Be Included For Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Country Club (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Secunderabad - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30232 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 114
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of land included in composite membership packages offered by Country Club (India) Ltd (now known as Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd) (appellant) cannot be included in the taxable value for the purpose of levying service tax under the category of “club or association service". The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi stated that "The value of land sold/ transferred to members of the appellant's club through their sister concern, as verified by CA based on financial records, bank statements, other relevant documents and certified accordingly, would be accepted as value of land and the same will be excluded from the gross value for re-computation of tax liability, if any, keeping in view the payments of service tax already made. While computing the service tax liability net of land value, the cumtax benefit will also be extended along with eligible credit lying in the balance and used for payment of service tax."
Case Title : Bank of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 409 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 115
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reversal of CENVAT credit cannot exceed the proportionate credit attributable to exempt supplies, while granting relief to Bank of India and remanding the matter for recomputation of the credit liable to be reversed. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that “we agree with the submission of the appellant that the demand for reversal of credit should not exceed the proportionate credit based on the exempt supply made by them. Therefore, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of quantifying the proportionate credit liable to be reversed by the appellant, along with applicable interest.”
Absence Of Check-Post Stamps Not Proof Of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Zemini Marketing Company v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86026 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 117
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a mere absence of check-post stamps on transportation documents cannot create a presumption that goods were not transported. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed: ".....that only for the reason that the check-post documents were not produced or were incomplete, it does not mean that the goods were not transported as the documents like Bilty, statements of suppliers, supporting supply of goods to Shri Malu and M/s SVPMIPL are available on record. Hence, only for the reason that Form No. 402 showing transportation of goods was not presented, it cannot be assumed that the goods were not received by Shri Rajendra Malu or M/s SVPMIPL."
Transportation Of Mining Rejects To Dumping Yard Qualifies For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.42545 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 116
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that transportation of waste and reject materials arising during mining operations qualifies as an 'input service', and accordingly, CENVAT credit is allowed to Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that had denied credit on services relating to loading and transportation of limestone rejects from captive mines to dumping yards.
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40646 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 118
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of over Rs 82 crore against Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., holding that laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from its SEZ unit to customers in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) cannot be treated as “dutiable goods” or “personal imports” under the Customs Tariff Act. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, was dealing with the issue of classification of laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from an SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area and whether such supplies could be treated as 'personal imports' liable to duty under Heading 9804 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Case Title : Super Transports (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41763/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 119
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that in a works contract involving tyre retreading, where VAT had been discharged on 70% of the contract value under the prescribed method, service tax could be levied only on the remaining 30%, observing that the same portion cannot be subjected to both levies. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Madurai-based Super Transports (P) Ltd.
Non-Charging Of Service Tax From Client Cannot Justify Non-Payment: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Ashima Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax – Ahmedabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 12328 of 2014-SM
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 120
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged by the taxpayer from its client cannot be a valid basis to claim bona fide belief, while also holding that commission agents, other than those dealing in agricultural produce, became liable to service tax from 9 July 2004. A coram of Judicial Member Somesh Arora observed, "The statutory provisions are clear and leave no scope for interpretation. Non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged cannot be considered a valid basis for claiming any bona fide belief." The bench also noted that "the only commission agents who remained exempted were those engaged in relation to the sale and purchase of agricultural produce."
VCES Immunity Bars Fresh Service Tax Demand After Discharge Certificate Is Issued: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. ARS Transport v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41417/2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 122
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that once a taxpayer declares dues under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and obtains a discharge certificate, the Department cannot issue a fresh notice for the same period on the same issue. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that a declaration accepted under the scheme attains finality and grants immunity from further proceedings.
BCCI Subsidies To Cricket Associations Not Taxable As Service Consideration: Kolkata CESTAT
Case Title : The Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata v. M/s. The Cricket Association of Bengal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75455 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 121
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that subsidies received by cricket associations from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are not liable to service tax, as they are in the nature of grants-in-aid and not consideration for any taxable service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that there was no quid pro quo between the parties and that the amounts were provided to promote the game of cricket.
Case Title : MRF Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40512 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 123
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a demand of over Rs. 221 crore raised against MRF Limited, holding that tyres, tubes and flaps tied with plastic straps do not constitute “pre-packaged commodities” under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and therefore cannot be subjected to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that plastic strapping used merely for transport safety does not amount to “packaging” and therefore does not trigger the requirement of declaring retail sale price under the Legal Metrology law.
Case Title : M/s. DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, GST Commissionerate- South Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55716 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 124
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., owner of Hotel Hilton Garden Inn, Saket, and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 39.64 lakh along with penalties, holding that salaries paid to the general manager and department heads of the hotel cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services. The dispute arose from an investigation linked to Hilton group entities, wherein the department alleged that the appellant had structured its arrangement in a manner that excluded salary payments to key managerial personnel, such as the general manager and department heads, from the taxable “operator fee” paid to Hilton's overseas entities.
Case Title : Forrester Research India Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 51243 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 125
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently held that services such as common area maintenance, vending machine operations, and travel agent services qualify as “input services” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in the case of a company providing taxable services including manpower supply, rent-a-cab, business auxiliary, and legal consultancy services. The tribunal held that such services have an indirect nexus with the provision of output services, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied on that ground.
Case Title : McCann Erickson (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Commissioner of CGST & CX GST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52352 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 126
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the Government cannot deny refund of excess service tax paid by mistake merely on the ground that the refund claim was filed after the limitation period, observing that amounts not legally payable as tax cannot be retained by the authorities. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya said that where tax is paid without any legal liability, such payment does not assume the character of service tax and therefore would not be governed by the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Tax Refund Cannot Be Denied As Time-Barred Where Service Was Not Provided: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER, DIVISION- CONNAUGHT PLACE, CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51091 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 127
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20 March held that refund of service tax paid on services which were ultimately not provided cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing appeals filed by Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd against rejection of refund claims on the ground of time bar.
Service Tax Demand Unsustainable Where Warranty Services Qualify As Works Contract: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Electrocare v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50720 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 128
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 March, held that a service tax demand cannot be sustained if warranty services qualify as Works Contract Services and all material particulars are duly disclosed, and that invoking the extended period of limitation is improper in the absence of suppression. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Electrocare, set aside the service tax demand raised for FY 2014–15, holding that the demand was unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Paddy Reaper Without Binder Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. VST Tillers Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40879 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 126
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that paddy reapers imported without a binder attachment cannot claim concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., which applies only to “reaper-cum-binder” machines. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by VST Tillers Tractors Ltd., while also holding that confiscation and penalty cannot be imposed where there is no misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.
Crossing Green Channel With Gold Hidden In Paste Form Shows Intent To Smuggle: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Shri Senthil Kumar Anbalagan v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30558 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 127
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a passenger's concealment of gold in paste form on the body and crossing the green channel at an international airport clearly establishes intent to smuggle, justifying absolute confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that concealment and non-declaration after opting for the green channel show deliberate evasion: "Once the passenger arrives from the foreign country and carries goods liable for declaration, the liability under the Customs Act arises regardless of the precise point of interception. The concealment of gold in paste form is a common modus operandi adapted to evade detection, and such conduct clearly establishes intention to smuggle."
Department Cannot Demand 6% Of Value On Exempted Electricity Once Credit Is Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. EID Parry India Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41118 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 128
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that once a taxpayer reverses proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods, the Department cannot compel payment of 6% of the value of such goods. The Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, allowed the appeals by EID Parry India Ltd., holding the demands and penalties unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Case Title : M/s Indus Towers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60669 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 129
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed appeals filed by Indus Towers Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services relating to telecom towers and shelters is admissible The dispute arose from multiple show cause notices issued for the financial years 2014–15 and 2015–16, alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used for providing passive telecom infrastructure.
Confiscation Cannot Survive Once Declared Transaction Value Is Accepted: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Kumar Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85820 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 130
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 March, held that the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained once the declared transaction value is accepted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties imposed on Kumar Impex, reasoning that once the transaction value is accepted, the allegation of undervaluation and resulting revenue loss no longer survives.
Failure To Specify Statutory Provisions Vitiates Service Tax Demand: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Trade Line v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42207 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 131
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 17 March set aside a service tax demand against Trade Line, holding that the Department cannot proceed when it fails to put the taxpayer on notice of the statutory provisions applicable to the relevant period. The Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “We also find that the Appellant has rightly contended that the Show Cause Notice No.30/2013 dated 18.09.2013 has not put the appellant to notice of the relevant statutory provisions post 01-07-2012 in order to sustain the demand for the period from 01-07-2012.”
CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds Transfer Of CENVAT Credit After Shift Of Centralised Registration
Case Title : Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1017 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 132
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh Bench, has recently held that transfer of unutilised CENVAT credit by a taxpayer from its Jaipur office to Gurgaon upon shifting of centralised registration is legally sustainable, in the absence of any dispute regarding the validity of such credit at the original location. A coram of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, while rejecting the Revenue's objection to the transfer of credit, noted that the Department itself had not questioned the credit originally availed at Jaipur, observing that “the department has not disputed the CENVAT Credit availed by the Assessees at their Jaipur office. The department has also not alleged that the CENVAT Credit had already been utilized in Jaipur.”
Transportation And Disposal Of Fly Ash Not Cargo, No Service Tax Leviable: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Threyambaka Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 3308 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 133
On 24 March, the Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore, held that transportation and disposal of fly ash cannot be classified as 'Cargo Handling Service' under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi, set aside substantial service tax demands raised by the Department against Threyambaka Enterprises.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside TANTRANSCO Demand As Time Barred, But Clarifies Rent-a-Cab Service Taxable
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40323 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 134
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24 March, held that hiring motor vehicles for official use, classified as rent-a-cab services are not eligible for exemption under the reverse charge mechanism and remain liable to service tax, as they are merely facilitative in nature and not integral to the core function of electricity transmission A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. clarified that such services does not have a direct and proximate nexus with the activity of transmission or distribution of electricity.
Case Title : Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 89472 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 135
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 March, held that re-determination of value of imported goods without proper evidence of undervaluation is unsustainable in law. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed an appeal by Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty by the customs authorities. The Bench stated: “…the whole process of arriving at the re-determined value… is contrary to the law and factually incorrect.”
Import Value Cannot Be Re-Determined Solely Based On Local Engineer Certificate: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40225 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 135
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25 March held that the declared value of imported second-hand machinery cannot be rejected and re-determined solely on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's certificate. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed an appeal filed by Abirami Weaving Mills against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. It held: “...we are of the view that the redetermination of declared value based solely on local Chartered Engineer's certificate is not in order....”
Amortised Cost Of Moulds And Dies Includible In Assessable Value Under Excise Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Best Cast IT Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41797 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 136
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 March 2026 held that the amortised value of moulds and dies supplied by customers must be included in the assessable value of finished goods under excise law. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Best Cast IT Ltd., a manufacturer of aluminium die-cast automotive components.
Case Title : Vardhman Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55845 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 136
Ruling that a notification granting nil customs duty on cotton imports cannot be applied to Bills of Entry filed before it came into force, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected Vardhman Textiles' claim for exemption. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd., affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85618 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 137
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for outward transportation, holding that where goods are supplied on FOR (Free on Road) destination basis, the buyer's premises can be treated as the “place of removal." A single-member coram comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma dealing with an appeal filed by Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. challenging the denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services used for transporting goods to customers' premises.
Case Title : ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20435-20436 of 20192
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 137
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed by ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., an SEZ unit, holding that denying refund on the ground that employee group medical and personal accident insurance do not fall within “General Insurance Services” is “absolutely irrelevant” in the facts of the case. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi while dealing with the department's objection that the insurance services did not fall within “General Insurance Services”, observed, "The question of rejecting the refund claim on a ground that General Insurance does not include the specific insurance claimed by the appellant is absolutely irrelevant, in as much as the insurance is for the employees of the appellant. Moreover, the question of referring to the Cenvat Credit Rules for the admissibility of the refund is also misplaced since the refund is based only on the ground that specified services on which tax is discharged is used in the authorised operations which admittedly the appellant has satisfied.”
Case Title : M/s. Doddanavar Brothers v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20085 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 138
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category cannot be levied where transportation is undertaken through individual truck operators without issuance of consignment notes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Bhagya Devi set aside the demand raised on freight expenses incurred for transportation of iron ore for export by Doddanavar Brothers, a mining exporter.
Case Title : M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 25401 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 139
On 24 March, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Expanded Fire Clay Grog” is correctly classifiable as a ceramic product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6902. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the product satisfies the essential requirement for classification under Chapter 69, namely: “fired after shaping.”
Case Title : Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20233 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 140
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently allowed appeals filed by Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd., holding that freight margin and foreign exchange fluctuation gains cannot be treated as consideration for service tax. Observing that the issue is no longer res integra, the tribunal held, "Since, these issues are squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 20650/2024 dated 23.07.2024 and 21361-21362/2025 dated 02.09.2025, demand against said impugned orders are unsustainable."
Invoice Errors Cannot Block CENVAT Credit If Receipt And Use of Goods Are Proven: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Kavveri Telecom Products Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 141
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March clarified that minor discrepancies in invoices cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit where the receipt and use of goods are duly established. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao held that the denial of credit to Kavveri Telecom Products Ltd., the appellant, was unjustified, as it had produced sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating receipt, payment, and utilization of inputs.
Case Title : M/s Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 142
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus cannot be denied to a sub-contractor merely because their name does not appear in the main concession agreement, where its role is otherwise established on record. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao observed that the condition of being a “named sub-contractor” stands satisfied if the appointment is evident from agreements, communications, and certification by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Service Tax On Commission Paid To Foreign Agents For Services Outside India: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20938 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 143
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on commission paid to foreign agents where the services are rendered and received outside India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Mr. P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi observed: “Since the services are rendered abroad and not received in India, the question of liability to pay service tax under Section 66A does not arise.”
No Service Tax On Invoices Issued Before Completion Of Work: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s APN Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Ghaziabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70680 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 137
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March held that service tax is not payable on invoices issued before completion of work. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed an appeal by APN Infra Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Invoice is required to be issued within 30 days after completion of the service or on receipt of payment towards value of taxable service.”
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax, CENVAT Demand Against Advertising Company
Case Title : Radiant Advertising & Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75351 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 143
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside a demand of Rs. 6,25,706 against an advertising company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not invocable and that no excess CENVAT credit was availed. The order was passed by a coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, which held that the demand raised by invoking the extended period was unsustainable as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade tax and further found no merit in the allegation of excess CENVAT credit.
Boronated Calcium Nitrate Not Eligible For Concessional Duty As 'Calcium Nitrate': CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10247 of 2024- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 138
On 1 April, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Boronated Calcium Nitrate” is a distinct product from “Calcium Nitrate” and is therefore not eligible for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh dismissed three appeals filed by Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd., holding: “Boronated Calcium Nitrate imported by the appellant is a different product than Calcium Nitrate and therefore, the product is not eligible to concessional rate of duty under Entry No.225(I)(b) of Notification No.50/2017-Cus.”
Service Tax Leviable Even On Pre-2008 Loading Of Goods For Transportation: Hyderabad CESTAT
Case Title : M/s Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 25817 of 2013 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT(HYD) 139
On 1 April, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that loading of goods onto trucks for delivery to customers constitutes “cargo handling service” (CHS) and is liable to Service Tax even prior to the 2008 amendment. The Bench, comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad, was hearing an appeal filed by Agarwal Global Steels Ltd. against an Order-in-Appeal dated 19 November 2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad-IV, which had confirmed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 6,02,741/-.
CESTAT Chennai Rules Transportation Charges Not Taxable In C&F Services Before May 2015
Case Title : Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41891 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 144
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 April, held that reimbursable transportation charges paid to a clearing and forwarding (C&F) agent do not form part of the taxable value of services for the period prior to the 2015 amendment to the Finance Act. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Mr. Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Toll India Logistics Pvt. Ltd., clarifying that only the consideration received for the actual service rendered is taxable.
Case Title : M/s. Ajab Singh & Co. v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54194 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 140
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that Coronation Park, being a historical site of national importance, is eligible for exemption from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya heard cross appeals filed by Ajab Singh & Co. and the Revenue against a common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak.
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Customs Duty On Imported Natural Rubber, Dismisses MRF's Appeal
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40936 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that the levy of Additional Duty of Customs equivalent to Rubber Cess on imported natural rubber is legally sustainable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by MRF Limited, noting that the issue stands covered against the taxpayer by coordinate Bench and Larger Bench decisions.
Job Worker Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Capital Goods Despite Invoice Name Mismatch: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41350, 41351 of 2017 & 41699 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 146
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a job worker can avail CENVAT credit on capital goods even if invoices are not issued in its name, provided the goods are received, accounted for, and used in the manufacturing process. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held: “In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the allegation of the Revenue that ACPL had availed ineligible CENVAT credit is clearly unsustainable and is also not supported by any statutory provision and hence, the demand in the impugned orders cannot sustain.”
Case Title : M/s Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40283 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHE) 147
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March, held that a claim for exemption under a customs notification cannot succeed when the goods are specifically excluded and prescribed conditions are not met. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by Western Farm Fresh (P) Ltd. against the Department. The Tribunal stated: “We find that there is no dispute as regards the withdrawal of the benefit vide Note 2 to Notification No.125 supra and hence, clearly, the Appellant's claim for the benefit was not in order.”
Case Title : M/s. General Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 531 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 141
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently set aside a demand exceeding Rs. 1.52 crore, holding that the valuation of goods manufactured through job work and sold to job workers cannot be determined on arbitrary assumptions. The tribunal ruled that where goods are cleared on a principal-to-principal basis and price is the sole consideration under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, the transaction value must be accepted. The ruling was delivered by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi in the case of General Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the export of coffee and spices.
Case Title : Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi North
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52586 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 142
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a service tax demand of Rs 64,61,530 against a firm supplying manpower to Government hospitals. The tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the benefit of the reverse charge mechanism under a 2012 notification, as the service recipients were not “business entities registered as a body corporate.” A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order confirming the demand along with interest and penalty.
Recovery Proceedings Can Be Initiated Only Against Persons Liable To Pay Excise Duty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Prashant Rajnikant Mehta & Anr. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85764 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 158
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 April held that proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be initiated against persons who are not chargeable with duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the demand confirmed against individuals who were not proprietors of the exporting firm, holding: “...proceedings under Section 11A ibid can only be initiated against such person and not on the present appellants… since the said appellants were not liable for payment of central excise duty… 11A proceedings cannot be invoked… from the present appellants.”
Mere Sale Of Advertising Space Without Creative Input Not Taxable Under Finance Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Digital AD Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42020 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 143
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that mere sale of advertising space, without any element of designing, conceptualising or preparing advertisements, does not amount to taxable “advertising agency service” under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax applies only where services of making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement are rendered. As per CBEC's clarification dated 16.08.1999, these should involve activities such as designing, visualising, or conceptualising advertisements. Mere sale of space does not attract tax as 'Advertising Agency Service'. Accordingly, display of a company name simpliciter, as in this case, does not amount to advertising agency service, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Service Tax On Services Received From Abroad Classified As IPR
Case Title : M/s MLR Motors Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27348 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 144
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that services received from abroad classified as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) services attract service tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotish and Judicial Member Angad Prasad partially allowed an appeal by MLR Motors Ltd, allowing the taxpayer to discharge such liability through CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1 July 2012.
Production Work For Broadcaster Liable To Service Tax Even With Copyright Transfer: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Sathya Jyothi Films v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.42361 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that service tax is leviable on the production of a television serial on behalf of a broadcaster under “programme producer's service”, even where the agreement provides for perpetual assignment of copyright. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. dismissed the appeal filed by Sathya Jyothi Films and upheld the service tax demand with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Penalty Against Biofuels Company As Service Tax Paid Before SCN
Case Title : Universal Biofuels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26117 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 168
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad has recently set aside penalties imposed on Universal Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., holding that the tax department should not have issued a show cause notice after the company had already paid the full service tax with interest. A coram of Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed, “In view of the factual matrix of this appeal, we find that in this case, in the first place, the SCN itself should not have been issued as the appellant had already paid the entire service tax along with applicable interest. Further, we find that the issue of payment of service tax under the category of MRSAS itself was under litigation and differing judgments were passed. There is nothing on record to substantiate that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant for non-payment of service tax with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we find that the appellants were eligible under section 73(3) and the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on section 73(4) is not correct."
CESTAT Hyderabad Remands Iron Ore Export Valuation Dispute After AO Ignored Contract Addendum
Case Title : M/s Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - CUS
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26820 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 153
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that the assessing authority must consider contractual modifications and supporting documents while finalizing export valuation and refund claims. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, observing that it had failed to appreciate modifications to the original contract, including an addendum reflecting changes in Fe content and price.
One Department Wing Cannot Contradict Another On Excise Duty Assessment: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41399 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 159
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that Central Excise authorities cannot question or reclassify goods already assessed by Customs at the time of import. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar set aside the demand of CENVAT credit on imported software by Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal observed: “When payment of CVD & SAD was accepted and the Customs classification is not disputed by the Customs authorities… it is very strange and uncomfortable situation when another wing of the same Department calls in question the classification of the same goods…”
Total Turnover Determines Eligibility For Tax Exemption, Not Just Taxable Services: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52404 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 169
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 April, held that to claim exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the “turnover” of a business entity includes its entire income and not just taxable services. Therefore, if the total turnover exceeds the prescribed limit, a refund of service tax cannot be granted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the order rejecting its refund claim of service tax paid under the reverse charge mechanism on legal consultancy services.
Case Title : M/s. Yokohama India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51369 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 170
On 7 April, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi allowed Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd. to claim a cash refund of CENVAT credit paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for the pre-GST period. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta clarified that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act protects such vested rights and the refund cannot be denied simply because the tax was paid after GST or due to alleged suppression without evidence.
CESTAT Delhi Says Govt Reimbursement Grant For Daawat Foods Plant Not Taxable As Service
Case Title : Daawat Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central : Respondent Excise, Bhopal-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51632 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 171
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has granted relief to Daawat Foods Ltd., holding that grant-in-aid received by it from the Government as reimbursement of expenditure is not liable to service tax as it does not constitute consideration for any service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya ruled that the financial assistance did not give rise to any service provider–recipient relationship.
Importer Not Liable For Post-Sale RSP Revision By Dealers: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51905 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 154
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 April, held that an importer cannot incur liability for differential customs duty based on a post-sale upward revision of Retail Sale Price (RSP) by independent dealers, once the parties complete the sale on a principal-to-principal basis. A Bench comprising President Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside the demand raised against Richemont India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the importer loses control over the goods after such sale and cannot bear liability for subsequent price changes.
Tobacco Pouches Up To 10g Not Liable To MRP-Based Excise Duty: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 1871 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 146
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that small tobacco pouches of 4 grams and 9 grams are not liable to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing a batch of appeals filed by Shiva Tobacco Co. and others. If Section 4A (MRP-based valuation) does not apply, valuation falls back to Section 4 (transaction value). The bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar delivered the ruling.
Case Title : NCC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 274 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 172
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has ruled that mobilisation advances received prior to the introduction of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, are not liable to service tax at the stage of receipt, granting partial relief to NCC Ltd. The Hyderabad Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad And Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed that the statutory framework prior to 1 March 2011 did not mandate payment of service tax on advances before actual provision of service, and emphasized that liability arose only in accordance with the law prevailing during the relevant period.
Case Title : M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30602 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 173
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that allegations of export undervaluation and demand of differential duty cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent and admissible evidence establishing receipt of additional consideration, setting aside the order against M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed, “While there is no denial that charges of under valuation can be established on the basis of preponderance of probability, but it cannot be based on presumptions and assumptions. Suspicion, how so ever, grave cannot replace proof.”
Case Title : Nishant Organic Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10505 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 174
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that freight and insurance charges are includable in the assessable value for excise duty where goods are delivered at the buyer's premises and not at the factory gate, thereby upholding the demand of duty, interest, and penalty. Referring to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the tribunal observed, "Above provisions clearly indicate that when excisable goods are not sold at the factory gate but the sale actually happens at any other place (which in this case is the customer's premises), the cost of transportation shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging excise duty."
Only Input Credit Used For Both Taxable and Exempt Activities Must Be Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40499 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 175
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has held that while reversing CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only common credit used for both taxable and exempted activities needs to be considered and not credit used exclusively for dutiable goods. The tribunal set aside the demands, interest, and penalties against Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.
CESTAT Chennai Allows ₹84 Lakh CENVAT Credit Claim By Komatsu India For Factory Expansion
Case Title : Komatsu India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41094 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 176
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to claim tax credit worth Rs 84.08 lakh on services used to expand its factory. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the company, which manufactures dump trucks, had added a new facility next to its existing plant to produce hydraulic excavators.
Case Title : CONCOR v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Imports
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51767 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 177
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the case of CONCOR, a custodian cannot be fastened with customs duty liability under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during its custody or tampering of seals of imported goods. A bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the demand of Rs. 51.80 lakh and penalties imposed on Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR), holding that in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during custody or tampering of seals, duty liability cannot be imposed on the custodian.
Case Title : Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40161 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 178
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Jindal Aluminium Ltd., holding that exemption under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) cannot be denied merely due to the absence of country-of-origin markings on imported scrap goods. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Jindal Aluminium Ltd. and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had denied the benefit of Notification No. 046/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs-Kandla v. Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 11604 of 2016- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 182
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has upheld the reclassification of imported synthetic fabrics, holding that laboratory test results clearly disproved the importer's declaration and rejecting a retesting plea raised after 11 years, while remanding valuation and SEZ exemption issues for fresh adjudication. A bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the Revenue's appeal against relief granted to Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd., finding that the CRCL test report conclusively established the composition of the goods.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Penalty On Time Avenue, Finds No Link To Importer's RSP Misdeclaration
Case Title : Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51914 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 183
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 April set aside a penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the penalty under Section 112(b) could not be sustained in the absence of proof that the appellant knew the goods were liable to confiscation.
Case Title : K.A. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 185
CITATION : Customs Appeal No. 50622 of 2024
On 10 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that where imported goods are cleared under the IGCR procedure, the Department cannot allege excess imports without explaining how customs officers permitted such clearance. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 31.40 lakh against K.A. Enterprises. They observed: “In the absence of any recording as to which of the two Assistant Commissioners committed the irregularity, the demand of duty on the appellant cannot be confirmed.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Nikon ₹7.32 Crore Refund, Holds Claim Pre-Exemption Decision Is Not Maintainable
Case Title : Nikon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52552 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 186
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 6 April, held that a refund claim filed before final adjudication of the underlying exemption dispute is not maintainable, even where duty has been paid under protest. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Nikon India Private Limited and upheld rejection of its refund claim.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Refund Of Service Tax On Cancelled Project, Rejects Limitation Bar
Case Title : Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax/Excise, Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51789 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 184
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 April held that authorities cannot deny refund of service tax paid on advances received for construction services on the ground of limitation, where the project is subsequently cancelled and the amounts are returned to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter, holding that the time limit under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act does not apply in cases where service tax is paid on advances for construction services, the project is later cancelled, and the amounts are refunded.
Works Contract Road Construction Taxable, Refund Barred Under Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sandeep Builders v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise-Jodhpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51487 Of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 382
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 16 April held that a service tax refund cannot be granted where the taxpayer has passed on the tax burden to the recipient, as such claims are barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the denial of refund to Sandeep Builders, noting that the activities undertaken by the company were correctly taxed as “Works Contract Services” under Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Grants Relief To Bharat Hotels, Sets Aside Service Tax On Forfeited Booking Advances
Case Title : Bharat Hotels Limited v. Commissioner of CGST-New Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 54762 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 187
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside a service tax demand against Bharat Hotels Limited on amounts retained upon cancellation of hotel room bookings. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal and held that advance amounts forfeited as “room retention charges” cannot be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects AAI's ₹30.31 Lakh Excess Service Tax Refund Claim Over Delay
Case Title : Airports Authority of India v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51270 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 188
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by Airports Authority of India (AAI). The challenge was to an order that had upheld rejection of its refund claim of ₹30.31 lakh, which AAI said was excess service tax paid on lease rent charged to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who heard the matter, held that merely claiming payment under mistake does not by itself entitle a party to a refund. If a claim is filed late and without a convincing explanation, it cannot be entertained. The tribunal also stressed that such claims are governed by the statutory framework, including limitations.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs GOQii Technologies Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85064 of 2025 2
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 189
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has ruled that GOQii activity trackers and fitness bands are not just simple pedometers, but devices with a range of features including the ability to communicate data. The tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against GOQii Technologies Pvt. Ltd The order was passed by a bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban while deciding a dispute over how these imported devices should be classified for customs duty purposes. The case covered imports made between November 20, 2017 and November 15, 2019.
Case Title : Sonova Hearing India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs – Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87752 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 190
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside a customs duty demand of about Rs 1.19 crore against Sonova Hearing India Pvt. Ltd. The order also wipes out the interest liability, an equal penalty, and a redemption fine of Rs 1 crore that had been imposed in the classification dispute over imported charging cases used with hearing aids.
Case Title : Sumitra Devi Kejriwal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75252 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 191
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an IGST demand raised on an importer functioning under Tea Spares (India) over an alleged short payment of tax on imports of tea plucking and pruning machines.It held that the department could not apply a higher rate under a residual entry without first disputing the classification opted for by the taxpayer. The tribunal observed that “the adjudicating authority has appropriately questioned the department's stance of not having questioned the description of the impugned goods their classification during the course of the post-clearance scrutiny and have merely issued the show cause notice stating therein that the subject imports did not attract IGST under Entry Sl.No.196 of Schedule-II of IGST Notification No.1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 30.06.2017.”
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹3.63 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand Against India Cements Over Imported Coal
Case Title : The India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41125 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 192
In a relief to cement major The India Cements Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a Rs.3.63 crore CENVAT credit demand along with interest and penalty, holding that credit cannot be denied merely because Countervailing Duty (CVD) was paid at concessional rates on imported steam coal. A Chennai bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the company's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated December 14, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli, which had confirmed a CENVAT credit demand of Rs. 3.63 crore along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 2.42 crore for the period September 2012 to June 2017.
Case Title : National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST-Jaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 52372 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 191
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed the appeal filed by National Engineering Industries Ltd., setting aside the denial of CENVAT credit on insurance services, forex hedging consultancy, and employee training and travel-related services, holding that these were used in relation to its manufacturing business. The case was decided by Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, who found that the services in question were connected, directly or indirectly, with the appellant's manufacturing activity and qualified as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in the facts of the case.
CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Service Tax On Emmvee Photovoltaics' Bonus Payments To Foreign Shareholders
Case Title : M/s. Emmvee Photovoltaics Power (P) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 193
On 21 April, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax on bonus payments made by Emmvee Photovoltaics Power Pvt. Ltd. to foreign shareholders and partly allowed the company's appeal, granting limited relief on penalties imposed under the Order-in-Original. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that bonus payments linked to performance conditions constitute consideration for marketing and business promotion services and attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand and Penalties On Ranbaxy In Ex-Works Valuation Dispute
Case Title : M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50589 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 194
On 24 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs duty demand, invocation of the extended limitation period, and penalties imposed on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.) and customs broker Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that although the importer incorrectly declared ex-works price as FOB value in Bills of Entry, the error arose from oversight and no material established any intention to evade customs duty.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows Release Of Seized Drone Parts, Says Separate Consignments Not Complete Drones
Case Title : IZI VS Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva-V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87853 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 196
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has ordered the provisional release of seized drones and drone components, holding that Customs cannot deny release by treating separate consignments of parts as complete drones without establishing a one-to-one correlation and that the parts were capable of being reassembled into complete units. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Department failed to show that the imported parts corresponded to complete drones capable of being assembled.
No Service Tax On Alumni Fee Collected By University In Absence of Service: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissiner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20077 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 195
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that no service tax can be levied on alumni fee collected by a university in the absence of any corresponding service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Manipal Education & Medical Group India Pvt. Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand exceeding Rs. 97 lakh raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangaluru.
Delay Beyond 90 Days Not Condonable Under Customs Act: CESTAT Mumbai Reiterates
Case Title : Parekh Cranes and Machinery Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86233 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(198)
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 April, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act beyond the original 60-day limitation period and the additional condonable 30-day period. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Parekh Cranes and Machinery and its partner, and upheld the confiscation and penalty orders as barred by limitation.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Toyota Boshoku's Appeal, Holds Seat Components As 'Parts Of Seats'
Case Title : M/s Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(DEL) 200
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 April held that goods specifically classifiable as parts of seats cannot be reclassified under a general entry for motor vehicle parts, and accordingly allowed the appeal filed by Shiroki Automobiles India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Toyota Boshoku Device India Pvt. Ltd.). A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj and held that the goods are correctly classifiable as “parts of seats” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9401 90 00 and not under CTI 8708 99 00.
IIM Bangalore Campus Recruitment Fees Taxable As Manpower Recruitment Services: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1538 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 201
On 27 April 2026, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that recruitment fees collected by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) from corporates during campus placements are liable to service tax under the category of “manpower recruitment or supply agency services”, while participation fees are not taxable. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal, confirming service tax only on recruitment fees for the normal period along with interest, granting cum-tax benefit, and setting aside the levy on participation fees and penalties.
Case Title : Gamco International v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Export-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87660 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 203
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has dismissed the appeal filed by Gamco International in a customs classification dispute involving alleged misdeclaration of imported marble slabs. It upheld confiscation, redemption fines, penalties, and denial of exemption after finding that the goods were actually limestone. The tribunal held that, in this case, there was clear misdeclaration of both the nature and quantity of the imported goods. It said the customs action was justified on that basis.
Gold Chains In Running Lengths Are Jewellery, Not Semi-Manufactured Gold: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Ram Aabhoshan v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 21961 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(BLR) 203
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bengaluru has recently held that gold chains imported in running lengths are to be treated as articles of jewellery and not as semi-manufactured gold, ruling that minor processes like cutting and attaching hooks do not alter their essential character. A coram of Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao said the goods had already taken the form of finished jewellery.
CESTAT Chennai Orders Refund Of Excise Duty On Revised Price Not Accepted By Buyer
Case Title : Woory Automotive India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41551 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 204
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that excise duty paid on a higher price claimed through supplementary invoices cannot be sustained where the buyer never accepted that price. “The contemporaneous letter dated 13.07.2015 issued by the buyer clearly establishes that the supplementary invoice was not accepted, the amount was not accounted in the books and no CENVAT credit was availed. Thus, the revised value never crystallized into a transaction value within the meaning of Section 4. Consequently, the duty paid on such notional and unrealized value cannot be sustained,” the court observed.
State VAT Exemption Cannot Override SAD Liability On Imports: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s.Enterprise International Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41779 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBIZ CESTAT(CHE) 205
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April dismissed an appeal filed by Enterprise International Ltd., holding that exemption from VAT in Uttar Pradesh cannot be used to avoid payment of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported silk fabrics. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao examined whether SAD liability can be avoided on the basis of a state-level VAT exemption and whether a demand can be raised when assessment is claimed to be provisional.
Procedure Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice: CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Appeal Rejection Over Delay
Case Title : HARSHAD KESHAV PARAB VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-MUMBAI CENTRAL
Case Number : SERVICE TAXAPPEAL NO.85334OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 197
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai has set aside an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had rejected a taxpayer's appeal solely because no application for condonation of delay was filed along with it, even though the delay was only 23 days. The tribunal held that procedural requirements cannot be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma observed, "It is a settled principle that procedural requirements, including limitation, should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive justice, particularly when the delay is marginal and satisfactorily explained. In the present case, the delay is only of 23 days, and the appellant has expressed willingness to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay if an opportunity is granted."
Case Title : Mysore Race Club Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23205 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 206
Service tax demand on services provided by a club to its own members under “Club or Association Services” cannot be sustained, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held, while ruling that Mysore Race Club Ltd. remains liable for service tax on restaurant services, event-related income, and sponsorship activities. The bench of Judicial Member D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd. to hold that the demand under “Club or Association Services” was not sustainable.
Case Title : G-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. VS Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50651 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 207
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi on Wednesday held that Bluetooth earphones remain earphones for customs classification and do not become data transmission devices merely because they use wireless connectivity. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the primary function of such devices is sound output, which makes them earphones. “Bluetooth Wireless Earphones are, objectively and physically, earphones. They produce sound in or near the ears of the user. The Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity is a technology by which audio signal reaches the device. It does not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purposes".
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Importer Entitled To DEPB Benefit Despite Subsequent Cancellation Of Scrips
Case Title : Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. (Presently known as M/s Saguna Foods Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86694 OF 20162
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)199
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that Saguna Poultry Farm Ltd. cannot be denied duty exemption on imports made using DEPB scrips that were valid at the time of use, even if those scrips were cancelled later. DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scrips are transferable licences issued to exporters that can be used to pay customs duty on imports. “The scrips were valid when they were utilized by the appellant. Subsequent cancellation would have no impact.”
Case Title : Deep Traders v. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra and Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 10762 of 2020 and 10995 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 211
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Ahmedabad has set aside confiscation and penalties imposed on Deep Traders, Gujarat, holding that its import of technical-grade urea through a State Trading Enterprise on a high sea sales basis did not violate the Foreign Trade Policy. In a high-seas sales transaction, the State Trading Enterprise imports the goods and sells them to an Indian buyer while the shipment is still at sea, with the buyer completing customs clearance. A coram of Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh said the issue was “no more res-integra” and followed earlier tribunal decisions to allow the appeals filed by Deep Traders.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹33.78 Crore Excise Demand On Sun Home Appliances Over Limitation
Case Title : Sun Home Appliances Private Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 51564, 50862 and 50861 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 212
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a central excise duty demand of Rs. 33.78 crore against Sun Home Appliances Private Limited. It held that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and that statements recorded during investigation could not be relied upon without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which requires that statements be tested through examination of the witness before being relied upon).
No Finding On Confiscation, No Penalty: CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Excise Penalties On Five Taxpayers
Case Title : Sanjeev Khera and Others v. Additional Director General (Adjudication)
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 51278, 51279, 51280, 51281 and 51364 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 213
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside penalties imposed under Excise Rulels on five taxpayers after finding that the adjudication order did not record any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. “There has to be a discussion and a finding that the goods are liable to confiscation. In the absence of such a finding penalties under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules could not have been imposed. This is clear from a bare perusal of rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules.". the court observed.
Additional Evidence Cannot Be Rejected Solely For Non-Filing During Adjudication: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mukesh Kumar Soni v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Rectification of Mistake Application No. 51514 of 2025 in Customs Appeal No. 52001 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 214
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has held that additional evidence may be permitted at the appellate stage if it is necessary to enable the Tribunal to pass orders or for sufficient cause. It said such evidence cannot be rejected solely because it was not produced during adjudication, recalling its earlier order in a gold seizure dispute.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Non-Cooperative Finding In Anti-Dumping Investigation Against Essilor
Case Title : Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (Formerly known as Essilor Amera Pte Ltd.) Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies
Case Number : ANTI-DUMPING APPEAL NO. 53193 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 209
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the finding treating Essilor Group as “non-cooperative” in an anti-dumping investigation on imports of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses from China, holding that such a finding was not justified. "The recommendation made by the designated authority for imposing anti-dumping duty on Essilor Group by treating it to be non-cooperative is not justified. It is, accordingly, set aside. The designated authority shall consider the cases of the Essilor Group afresh without treating the Essilor Group as noncooperative."
CESTAT Quashes ₹10.8 Crore Customs Duty Demand, Rejects Reliance On Wikipedia, Internet Material
Case Title : United Natural Stone (100% EOU) Vs Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), Jodhpur,
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50089 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 209
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside a Rs. 10.8 crore customs duty demand and penalties against a marble importer, finding that in this case the allegation of diversion of imported marble into the domestic market was based on Wikipedia and other internet material, as well as unproven third-party statements. The tribunal noted that the department had relied on “Wikipedia and other information available on the internet” to conclude that “Harmony Brown” marble is available only in India.
Case Title : Nikon India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 54730 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 210
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has ruled in favour of Nikon India in a customs dispute over import of digital cameras, holding that the Customs department must pay interest on Rs. 113.69 crore deposited under directions of the Supreme Court. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that once the Supreme Court directed refund of the amount with interest, the department was bound to follow that direction and could not deny interest by applying provisions of the Customs Act.
Case Title : Commissioner, Customs-Patparganj v. Siria Impex Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50006 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 215
Molybdenum sheets that are cut, curved and shaped for use in automobile lighting cease to be “sheets” and become finished articles, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya delivered the ruling. The tribunal allowed the department's appeals against Siria Impex Private Limited and restored the demand of differential duty along with the penalty.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹2.83 Crore Service Tax Demand On IL&FS Water
Case Title : IL & FS Water Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40556/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 216
In relief to IL&FS Water Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a Rs. 2.83 crore service tax demand, holding that an indivisible works contract cannot be split to treat the goods component as “trading” and deny input tax credit. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar was dealing with a dispute arising from a water supply project executed for the Indian Oil Corporation at Paradip under a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model.
Case Title : M/s. ITC Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20313 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 217
The Bangalore Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that no higher customs duty is payable on the imported “Monodisperse Aerosol Generator”, and set aside the Department's demand for differential duty along with interest and penalty. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao was hearing ITC Limited's appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld reclassification of the product under a heading attracting higher duty.
Waste Mud From Refining Process Not Liable To Excise Duty: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s 3F Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 22096 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 218
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “waste mud” (spent earth) generated during the refining of crude palm oil is not an excisable product under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act and is therefore not liable to Central Excise duty. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the duty demand and held that the adjudication rested on an invalid circular. The Tribunal ruled that involuntarily generated manufacturing waste cannot be treated as excisable goods merely on the ground of marketability.
No Service Tax On Non-Commercial Residential Construction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Ashish Enterprises v. Commissioner, GST, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70204 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 219
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that service tax does not apply to construction services rendered for residential colonies not intended for commercial use. It also set aside the bulk of the demand on the ground of limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Ashish Enterprises against the order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.67 crore along with interest and penalty for the period 2009–2014.
Case Title : The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 95 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 220
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has partly allowed an appeal filed by The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., setting aside the duty demand on diesel oil supplied to a vessel. The tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting a certificate issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) certifying the supply as duty paid, without assigning any cogent reason. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha set aside the demand of duty and interest on 49.431 MT of diesel oil supplied to vessel MT Arun Khetar Pal via Bunker Delivery Note dated March 13, 2008.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Tobacco Processing Not Manpower Supply, Allows Service Tax Refund
Case Title : Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42414 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 221
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 28 April, held that processing unmanufactured tobacco for a client constitutes agricultural job work and not manpower supply service. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. and granted refund of service tax. It held: “The appellant processes unmanufactured tobacco for or on behalf of their client which include incidental or auxiliary services related to agriculture. These services constitute an intermediate production process in relation to agriculture or agricultural produce. Consequently, the impugned services are eligible for exemption under the law discussed above, both pre and post the Negative List.”
Sugar Syrup Used In Biscuit Manufacturing Not Marketable, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Sumo Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 28086 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 222
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that sugar syrup prepared and used captively in the manufacture of biscuits is not marketable in the form in which it emerges and is therefore not eligible for central excise duty. The Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeals filed by Sumo Foods Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the demand confirmed by the Department.
Case Title : M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85879 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 223
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 5 May upheld the demand of duty, interest and penalty against Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to reverse the Special Additional Duty (SAD) component of CENVAT credit while transferring inputs “as such” between its units, holding that the plea of revenue neutrality is not applicable in such cases. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that the assessee's conduct reflected conscious non-compliance and rejected the plea of revenue neutrality.
Case Title : Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20641 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 225
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has set aside a Rs. 17.53 lakh excise duty demand against Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the concrete manufactured by the company near the Thanneermukkom Barrage construction site in Kerala was “concrete mix” and not “Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC)” liable to duty. Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi observed that the Revenue had failed to produce evidence showing that retarders and plasticizers typically associated with RMC production were used in the manufacturing process.
CENVAT Credit Allowed On Pollution-Control Infrastructure As Modernisation: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10149 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 224
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that CENVAT Credit on civil construction and works contract services used for establishing effluent treatment infrastructure in an existing factory is admissible, since compliance with pollution-control norms is a statutory obligation and an integral part of the manufacturing process. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha held that settled law clearly recognises services availed for fulfilling statutory environmental obligations as admissible input services and allowed the appeal filed by Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. and set aside the demand of Rs. 16,67,562, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Bengaluru Upholds Service Tax On Employee Secondment From Foreign Parent Company
Case Title : M/s. ARM Embedded Technologies Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 900 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 226
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that employees seconded by a UK-based parent company to its Indian subsidiary under a salary reimbursement arrangement would constitute “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” and would attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd, and upheld the service tax demand for the normal period but set aside penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Teena Labs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26793 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 228
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job work arrangement between Teena Labs Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. could not be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service” merely because Aurobindo Pharma exercised production and quality control and reimbursed various expenses. The tribunal observed that, “Thus, what is apparent is that there is an effective control on production process, quality control, etc., however, it cannot be said that APL has taken over the entire facility of the appellant on rent along with machinery, manpower, raw material, associate services, etc.”
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50104 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 227
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi has recently held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's excise duty refund appeal as time-barred solely on the basis of the date mentioned in the appeal proforma, without examining its submissions and affidavit explaining the delay. A bench of Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, after finding that BHEL's appeal against rejection of its refund claims for the period 2011-12 to 2017-18 upto June 30, 2017 had been dismissed as being beyond the condonable period of 90 days.
Customs Cannot Deny Interest On Refunds By Calling Applications “Incomplete”: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : PNP POLYTEX PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
Case Number : COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 229
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs authorities cannot delay refund claims for years and later deny statutory interest by calling them “incomplete”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati ruled that interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 becomes payable three months after the refund application is filed, even if the department later raises deficiency memos or seeks additional documents.
Case Title : R. S. Company Vs Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51496 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 230
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside an excise duty demand and penalties against R.S. Company and its partner in a gutka clandestine removal case. It found that the Commissioner relied on photocopies of six lorry receipts, DGGI re-quantification, and a formula based on alleged scented tobacco receipts without sufficient supporting evidence. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “The adjudicating authority, thereafter, has simply relied on the information supplied by DGGI and determined the demand of duty without examining the evidence.”
CESTAT Bengaluru Quashes Service Tax Demand On Grants-In-Aid, Allows Earth Science Institute Appeal
Case Title : M/s National Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21752 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 231
On 8 May, the Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that grants-in-aid received from government departments do not constitute “consideration” and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two tax appeals (21752 and 21754 of 2015) filed by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies. It held: “.....wherever the Appellants receives grants-in-aid from Government Departments/Ministries, those grants-in-aid amounts cannot be subjected to service tax since they cannot be treated as 'consideration'.....”
CESTAT Bengaluru Exempts KILA Training Services From Service Tax Under Mega Exemption Notification
Case Title : M/s. Kerala Institute of Local Administration v. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Kozhikode Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20928 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 232
The Bengaluru Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8 May 2026 held that training and capacity-building services in local governance provided by the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) are exempt from service tax. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi held that the services fall under Serial No. 39 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST as they relate to functions entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : Varun Beverages Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, NhavaSheva-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.85153 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 233
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Mandarin (Kinow) Frozen Concentrate falls under the residual entry for “juice of any other single citrus fruit” under Tariff Item 2009 3900 and not under the “orange juice” category under Tariff Item 2009 1100, thereby upholding the higher rate of customs duty. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar upheld the Revenue's classification and sustained the duty demand, while granting relief to the importer on limitation and penalty.
Case Title : Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11178 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 234
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Ahmedabad has set aside a Rs 4.94 lakh Additional Excise Duty demand against Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. over aerated waters manufactured before the levy came into force but cleared later, holding that the department could not sustain the demand. “Since, the department has accepted the earlier orders in favour of the appellant and has not filed any appeal, therefore, now the department is prevented from taking a contrary stand today,” the tribunal held.
Case Title : M/s Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 25163 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 235
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May held that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not permit denial of CENVAT credit on input services used for generation of electricity, since electricity is not an excisable good. Rule 6 bars CENVAT credit to the extent common inputs or input services are used for exempted goods or services. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeal filed by Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd. and quashed a demand of Rs. 1.17 crore along with interest and penalty, holding that the Department's case lacked a valid legal foundation.
Case Title : Mustafa Ali v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.76228 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 236
In a ruling on the taxability of multi-level marketing (MLM) operations under the pre-GST regime, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that activities involving purchase and sale of goods under an MLM model cannot be classified as taxable “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994, where the core activity remains trading in products rather than rendering an independent service.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules Procedural Compliance In Filing Grounds Of Appeal Is Mandatory, Grants Remand
Case Title : SALINI NDT SERVICES P LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE-BELAPUR
Case Number : SERVICE TAX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.85699 OF 2026 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL No.86992 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 237
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that filing proper grounds of appeal along with Form ST-4 under the Finance Act, 1994 is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory condition for meaningful adjudication. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma however also held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits after permitting rectification.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Buyer's Premises Can Be 'Place of Removal', Upholds GTA Credit In FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal-GST v. Gloster Cables Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30453 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 238
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that in FOR destination sales, where freight and insurance form part of the assessable value and the seller retains risk and ownership till delivery, the buyer's premises can qualify as the “place of removal”. Consequently, Service Tax paid on outward GTA services is eligible for CENVAT Credit. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that the Department cannot adopt inconsistent positions by accepting excise duty on a value inclusive of freight and insurance while denying CENVAT Credit on the corresponding transportation services.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Tax Demand Against IndiGo Holds Aircraft Generators Attract 18% IGST, Not 28%
Case Title : Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55094 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 240
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed tax demands and penalties against InterGlobe Aviation over the classification of aircraft generators imported for use in IndiGo aircraft. It held that generators used with turboprop and turbofan gas turbine engines cannot be classified as equipment used with spark-ignition or compression-ignition internal combustion engines, meaning they attract 18% IGST under the classification claimed by InterGlobe rather than 28% IGST under the tariff entry invoked by customs.
Case Title : Dilip Dhakan v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 240 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 239
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹25 lakh customs penalty imposed on a Rodex International partner, holding that he could not be separately penalised once the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same contravention. It, however, reduced another penalty against him to ₹2 lakh in the same concealment case. “I hold that no separate penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a)" of Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Service Tax Demand Against Jamnalal Bajaj Institute On Student Placement Fees
Case Title : Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies v. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86651 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 241
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 May held that educational institutions facilitating campus placements cannot attract service tax under “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” where employers or recruiting entities pay no consideration and institutions collect placement-related fees only from students. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed the appeal filed by Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, which had imposed service tax liability on placement-related fees collected from students.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Foreign Bank Charges on Export Remittances Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge
Case Title : Lingeswara Creation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.40056 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 242
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May held that foreign bank charges deducted during the remittance of export proceeds do not give rise to service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism, as no service provider–recipient relationship exists between the exporter and the foreign banks. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar, allowed the appeal filed by Lingeswara Creation and set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹29.72 Lakh Demand Against Owens Corning, Bars SCN After Voluntary Payment
Case Title : M/s Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Raigad
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 86439 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 243
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Raigad, which had confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 29.72 lakh along with interest and equal penalty against Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. in relation to rent-a-cab services received under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati held that once the company paid the entire service tax liability along with applicable interest and intimated the department in terms of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the department could not issue a show cause notice on the same issue.
Case Title : M/s Daya Exports v. Commissioner, CGST & Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70068 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 244
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that computer cabinet cases lacking essential components such as a CPU, RAM, and hard disk cannot be treated as incomplete or unfinished computer systems merely on account of the presence of other parts like motherboards, fans, wiring, and power supply units. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed the appeal by Daya Exports and set aside confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Bars Revenue From Recovering Education Cesses In Cash After MEIS Scrip Payment
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) Vs C J Shah
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85948 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 245
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed Revenue appeals seeking to recover Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in cash from importers. These importers had already paid the amounts using duty credit scrips issued under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), an export incentive programme under India's Foreign Trade Policy that rewarded exporters with duty credits. “The attempt by Revenue to recover the same in cash would lead to double recovery, which is impermissible in law.”
Case Title : Champion Jointing Private Limited v. CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11862 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 246
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has set aside a ₹11.12 lakh service tax demand against Champion Jointing Private Limited over performance commission and perquisites paid to its whole-time directors. Judicial Member S.S. Garg held: “The entire demand proceeds on a misconception of law, namely that any remuneration paid by a company to its directors beyond fixed monthly salary must be regarded as consideration for independent taxable service.”
CESTAT Bangalore Holds Chocolate Flavour Not A Cocoa Preparation, Quashes Customs Duty Demand
Case Title : Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20143 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 247
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 May held that the chocolate flavouring substances meant to be added to food cannot be classified as “chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa” under Customs Tariff Heading 18069090. Judicial Member Justice P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties against Prova Flavours India Pvt Ltd and allowed its appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore.
Senior Tax Officers Can Exercise Powers Of Subordinate Officers Under AP Sales Tax Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 01 and 02 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 248
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that senior tax officers can exercise powers vested in subordinate officers under the Andhra Pradesh sales tax law. The tribunal made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by Hyderabad-based refined oil and vanaspati manufacturer Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. against a Central Sales Tax demand of Rs. 2.33 crore and a penalty of Rs. 6.43 crore.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Recovery Against Hindustan Copper Over 23-Year Delay and No Show Cause Notice
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No.85750 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 249
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 May set aside recovery proceedings against Hindustan Copper Ltd., holding that adjudication conducted nearly 23 years after the demand notice was issued was legally unsustainable and violated principles of natural justice. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Tribunal held: “The department's inaction for approximately twenty-three years is not merely a procedural lapse, it amounts to a constructive abandonment of the proceeding. Having allowed the matter to rest undisturbed for so long, the Revenue cannot be permitted to revive and complete a proceeding that causes grave and irreparable prejudice to the Appellant, whose ability to meet the demand has been fundamentally compromised by the passage of time.”
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Transfers Between Amalgamated Units Not Taxable As Related-Party Sales
Case Title : M/s RR Ispat v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : EXCISE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.50629 OF 2023 AND 51251 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 250
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May held that transfers of goods between amalgamated units sharing the same legal identity do not qualify as “sales” under the Central Excise law and, therefore, the related-party valuation rules do not apply. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal by R R ISPAT and held that once two units are amalgamated and operate under the same PAN and Corporate Identification Number, they no longer remain separate legal persons.
Case Title : Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86325 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 251
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 May set aside a Rs. 2.73 crore service tax demand raised against Standard Chartered Finance Pvt. Ltd., holding that the show cause notice was fundamentally defective because it did not specify the exact statutory provision under which the Department sought to tax the services. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi quashed the demand along with interest and penalties, holding that the defective notice violated principles of natural justice.
Case Title : SOL Mobiles Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87854 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 252
On 12 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the customs demands and penalties on SOL Mobiles Private Limited and its Vice-President (Finance & Accounts) Manjit Jha, holding that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export amounted only to “configuration” and not “use” under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the customs proceedings could not survive in view of the Delhi High Court's ruling in AIMS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which the Supreme Court later left undisturbed.
Hyderabad CESTAT Upholds Rule 26 Penalty On Philips For Knowledge Of Undervalued Excisable Goods
Case Title : M/s Philips Electronics India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26858 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 253
On 14 May, the Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissed the appeal filed by Philips Electronics India Ltd. challenging the penalty imposed in connection with excisable goods manufactured by Quad Electronic Solutions Pvt Ltd. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad held that a company can be penalised under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules if it knowingly deals with goods cleared at undervalued prices that are liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Delhi Rejects Customs Case Against PU Leather Importers Over Unsealed Laptop Evidence
Case Title : Baba Leather Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 49-54 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 254
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside customs duty demands and penalties imposed on multiple importers of PU leather fabric. It held that electronic records retrieved from an unsealed laptop kept in investigators' custody could not be relied upon, as the department had failed to follow the legal procedure required to authenticate electronic evidence under the Customs Act (Section 138C). A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, also held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon. It said the mandatory legal procedure for relying on statements recorded during the investigation had not been followed (Section 138B).
Case Title : Sharp Mint Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51692 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 255
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a central excise duty demand of over Rs. 50 lakh raised against Sharp Mint Limited, holding that the department failed to prove its allegation that the company had clandestinely removed excisable goods found in its godown. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Sharp Mint Limited against a de novo adjudication order passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North.
Case Title : Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. v. Commissioner ofCGST & Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54709 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 256
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, has set aside a ₹1.53 crore service tax demand, along with interest and penalties, against Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. It held that the company's investment in and redemption of mutual fund units could not be treated as an exempt service for the purpose of denying CENVAT credit. “The mere investment in mutual fund units by the Appellant and the subsequent redemption of those units does not involve the rendering of any activity by the Appellant for any other person for consideration,” the tribunal said.
Case Title : Lemon Tree Hotel v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 22099 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 257
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a ₹33.54 lakh service tax demand and penalties against Lemon Tree Hotel. The Tribunal found that the hotel wrongly claimed abatement benefits while availing CENVAT credit on input services linked to its restaurant and accommodation services. “We have not found any evidence to suggest that the services like Maintenance and Repair services or Internet services or Courier services were not used for providing any of these services viz., RS or AS.”, the tribunal observed.
Stock Broker's Charges For Clients' Delayed Share Payments Not Service Taxable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Steel City Securities Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30893 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 259
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed Steel City Securities Ltd.'s appeal against a service tax demand on delayed payment charges collected from clients, setting aside the demand relating to stock broking transactions while upholding the levy on delayed payments linked to DEMAT account services. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that delayed payment charges collected for late payment towards share purchases were relatable to interest on funds deployed by the broker and could not be treated as a taxable declared service.
Case Title : All Sky Marketing Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75644 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 258
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs' confiscation of All Sky Marketing Pvt Ltd's All Sky, D&B and Eleprint branded shoe consignments. It held that the confiscation of those goods could not be sustained, noting that they were separately packed, were not used to conceal the infringing goods, and that the adjudicating authority had given no reasons for confiscating them.
Case Title : M/s. Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52453 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 260
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that roads constructed within Krishna Kunj Pvt. Ltd.'s “Solitaire Industrial Park-II” at Jaipur were meant for use by the general public and qualified for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by Krishna Kunj and upheld denial of CENVAT credit on merits but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of the demand for the normal period, along with applicable interest and penalty.
Case Title : M/s GE India Industrial Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 31258 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 261
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the one-year limitation for refund claims by exporters of services runs from the date of receipt of foreign exchange remittance, and not from the end of the relevant quarter. A coram of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi was interpreting the amended refund notification applicable to service exporters from March 2016, and held, "We, therefore, find that a plain reading of notification clearly requires them to file refund claim within one year from the date of receipt of convertible foreign exchange.”
Case Title : Jasmine Biotechnologies v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2352 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 263
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside the reclassification of imports made by Jasmine Biotechnologies from bio-fertilisers to insecticides. It held that the Customs Department failed to establish through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence that the products were insecticides or prohibited imports. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi passed the order while allowing four connected appeals filed against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Rs 33.88 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Gurbani Constructions
Case Title : M/s Gurbani Constructions v. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Dehradun
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50121 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 262
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of over Rs.33 lakh against Gurbani Constructions over alleged taxable construction activities and purported additional payments from a hotel client. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the department could not sustain the demand without evidence. “He who asserts has to prove” and if a show cause notice is issued alleging that the appellant had constructed residential complexes, “it is for the department to prove this along with evidence in the SCN.”
CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Interest On Delayed Refund Of ₹21.17 Crore Extra Duty Deposit To JSW Steel
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Vs JSW Steel Limited
Case Number : CUSTOMS STAY APPLICATION NO. 85268 OF 2018 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85677 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 264
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Customs cannot deny interest on the delayed refund of ₹21.17 crore paid as Extra Duty Deposit merely because Bills of Entry remained pending finalisation on unrelated issues. The tribunal observed that “under no circumstances can the respondents be made liable for the delay on the part of the Department, which fact has also been taken cognizance in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)."
Case Title : Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 527 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 265
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made to Russian state agency Rosoboronexport. The payments are related to the transfer of technology and technical assistance for the manufacture of SU-30 MKI aircraft in India. The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi. The tribunal partly allowed HAL's appeals against service tax demands raised by the department on the alleged import of “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services”.
Case Title : M/s Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55715 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 266
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside customs duty demands exceeding Rs. 25 lakh against Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. holding that customs authorities cannot invoke the extended limitation period under the Customs Act merely because they disagree with the tariff classification adopted by the importer. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the company's appeal against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi, and quashed the duty demand, penalties and confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Remands Customs Dispute Over Imported Goods' Classification As Thinner Or Solvent
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Mundra Customs v. Bright Petrochem India LLP
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10139 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 269
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has remanded a customs classification dispute involving imported petrochemical products. It found that the available laboratory reports did not conclusively establish whether the goods were general-purpose paint thinners or restricted petroleum hydrocarbon solvents. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that fresh testing was necessary. The bench observed that “correct classification of goods cannot be determined in absence of all the relevant parameters.”
Case Title : Shri Ashok Kharey, Director v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26384 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 267
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May upheld a penalty of Rs. 20 lakh imposed on Ashok Kharey, director of Hong Kong based Maxx Access Ltd., holding that foreign nationals can be penalised under the Customs Act where their conduct has a direct nexus with customs fraud and duty evasion in India. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed Kharey's appeal, observing: "Once manipulated invoices were knowingly prepared and utilized for Customs clearance in India, the offence stood completed within Indian Territory. A person situated outside India, who consciously and deliberately participates in fraudulent importation into India, cannot seek immunity merely because of the conspiracy (acts of appellant) originated outside India".
Case Title : Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52209 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 268
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 May set aside the customs duty demand, confiscation order and penalty imposed on Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department failed to establish that the imported goods were complete mobile phones in CKD/SKD condition. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar reiterated that imported goods can be reclassified as finished articles under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff only if the Customs Department discharges the burden of proving that they possess the essential character of the complete goods.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Service Tax Demand On Indian Unit Over Foreign Parent's Un-Invoiced Allocations
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Dana India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50734 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 270
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has quashed a Rs 1.88 crore service tax demand raised on an Indian subsidiary over un-invoiced allocations reflected in its foreign parent company's internal accounting system. The Tribunal found that the disputed amounts did not relate to any service rendered to the subsidiary and involved no consideration. A coram of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue against Dana India Private Ltd., its Managing Director Saket Sapra, Head of Finance Sharad Jain, and General Managers (Finance) Sunil Joshi and Manoj Agarwal. It upheld an order that had dropped the tax demand and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise, Gautam Budddh Nagar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70080 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 271
On 19 May, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax under the reverse charge mechanism cannot be levied merely on the basis of payments made in foreign currency, and that the Department must first establish receipt of a taxable service. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside service tax demands exceeding Rs 77 crore raised against Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. for the period July 2006 to June 2017.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Glucometers Are Instruments For Chemical Analysis, Not Medical Diagnostic Devices
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52218 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 272
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the customs department's attempt to reclassify its imported diagnostic devices, including glucometers, from instruments for chemical analysis to medical diagnostic instruments. The tribunal set aside the differential duty demand and penalties. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the issue was no longer open to debate in view of earlier Tribunal rulings and the Supreme Court's affirmation of one such decision. The bench held that Aspen had correctly classified the subject goods and rightly availed the exemption benefit.
Case Title : Aglow Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 273
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that licence fees, engineering package charges, and technical assistance payments cannot be added to the assessable value of imported equipment where they are separately contracted and are not a condition of sale. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, “Law has been settled that once separate prices are provided for the supply of technical assistance, royalty etc. on one part and supply of equipment or capital goods on other part, then the consideration for the supply of technical assistance cannot be added to the assessable value in respect of import of equipment.”
Case Title : M/s Shaifali Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 214 & 215 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 278
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 May held that once Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India judgment, the Department could not demand excise duty merely because the taxpayer utilised CENVAT credit during the period of default in payment of duty. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed the appeals and set aside the excise duty demand of Rs. 3.60 crore and the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC. The Tribunal, however, clarified that interest liability on delayed payment of duty would survive.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Credit Card Cashback Incentives Not Taxable, Upholds Relief To Tek Travels
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Gurugram v. M/s Tek Travels Pvt Ltd
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60937 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 276
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that cashback incentives received from banks on the use of commercial credit cards for airline ticket bookings do not constitute consideration for any taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and P. Technical Member Anjani Kumar upheld the Commissioner's order dropping the service tax demand of Rs. 8.03 crore raised against Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. on cashback incentives received from banks for using commercial credit cards.
Case Title : M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Noida
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70228 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 277
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 14 May held that concrete mix manufactured and consumed at construction sites for residential projects qualifies for exemption from central excise duty and cannot be classified as “Ready Mix Concrete” (RMC) without technical evidence establishing the characteristics of RMC manufacturing. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon held that the Department failed to prove that Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. manufactured RMC and allowed all five appeals with consequential relief.
Case Title : A. Mariappan v. Commissioner of Customs & Connected Matters
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40309 of 2024 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 279
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 May upheld penalties against exporters, customs brokers and a customs officer in a case involving the alleged export of gold-plated copper jewellery as “22 carat gold jewellery” to fraudulently divert duty-free imported gold under an export promotion scheme. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the customs broker and its personnel facilitated examination of consignments outside the prescribed roster mechanism.
Case Title : Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 11958, 11957 & 11936 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 274
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed appeals filed by Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., its director and a customs broker. The dispute concerned Countervailing Duty (CVD) liability on imports made under Advance Authorisation between September 7, 2017 and October 12, 2017. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh passed the order. Holding that the issue was “no more res-integra”, the Tribunal followed the Allahabad Bench ruling in Vishal Metal Industries and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title : Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : CST Appeal Nos. 12 & 13 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 281
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd.'s movement of goods from Maharashtra to its depots in other States for subsequent sales amounted to stock transfers and not inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the agreement between Kimberly Clark and Hindustan Lever Limited was merely a broad framework or standing offer, with the contract of sale arising only when specific purchase orders were placed.
CESTAT Delhi Holds GE Vernova's Imported Products Are Relays, Not Multifunctional Devices
Case Title : GE Vernova T&D India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 52421, 52730, 52732 & 52733 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 275
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that four imported products of GE Vernova T&D India Ltd., including relay products with additional monitoring, data logging and alarm features, remain classifiable as “relays.” The tribunal held that their principal function continues to be protection and control of electrical systems. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed appeals filed by GE Vernova T&D India Ltd. and three of its officials. The appeals challenged a customs order that had reclassified the imported products as Feeder Management Intelligent Electronic Devices (FMIEDs), denied exemption benefits to certain imports, and imposed duty demands and penalties.
Importer Cannot Contest Customs Reassessment After Accepting Enhanced Value: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mahabal Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51109 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 280
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has dismissed an importer's challenge to enhancement of customs value after finding that it had accepted the revised valuation, paid duty, and cleared the goods without protest. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao distinguished the Delhi High Court's ruling in Niraj Silk Mills, where the importer had consistently protested the reassessment and sought provisional clearance. “It clearly transpires from the records that the appellant unconditionally accepted the enhanced value and paid the duty and cleared the goods and it is later that a challenge was made to the enhancement of the value in the appeal.”
Case Title : Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52749 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 282
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a Rs.10 lakh penalty imposed on Rathi Iron & Steel Ind. Ltd., finding no material to show that the company had dealt with goods allegedly removed without payment of duty or had knowledge or belief that they were liable to confiscation. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held, “The appellant had not dealt with the goods that may be liable to confiscation and nor is there anything to show that the appellant had knowledge or belief that such goods were liable for confiscation.”
Case Title : RB Seth Shreeram Narsingdas v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 23062 of 2014
CITATION : LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 284
The Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT has held that Customs authorities can rely on subsequently obtained documents to revisit self-assessed export shipping bills if those documents reveal wrong declarations made at the time of export. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed: “Essentially, on the issue of whether in the case of re-assessment, the department can resort to various other information, which came to their knowledge subsequently and demand differential duty, we find that they can rely on additional documents, which are relevant and also indicating wrong declaration at the time of export covered under self-assessed shipping bills.”
Exporter Can't Be Denied CENVAT Credit Solely For Lack Of Service Tax Registration: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s IVY Comptech Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. ST/26080/2013
CITATION : LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 285
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax registration is not a pre-condition for taking CENVAT credit where a taxpayer was exclusively engaged in the export of services and not liable to pay service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held a plain reading of the statutory framework did not support the department's stand that such credit could be denied solely because the taxpayer had not obtained registration.
Case Title : GX India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51799, 51800 & 51841 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 283
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Optical Network Terminals (ONT/ONU) and Optical Line Terminals (OLT) imported by GX India Pvt. Ltd. are machines used to receive and transmit data. It rejected the company's classification of ONT/ONU as “subscriber end equipment” and OLT under the residual “other” category. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed GX India's appeals. It remanded the company's exemption claims to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
67% Service Tax Abatement Cannot Be Denied For Omission In ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Singh Construction Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76819 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 286
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 May held that substantive benefit of 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST cannot be denied merely because the taxpayer failed to claim the benefit in its ST-3 returns, particularly when the record admitted use of materials in execution of construction services. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand, interest and penalty imposed on Singh Construction Corporation after finding that the taxpayer had already paid tax in excess of its actual liability upon extending the eligible abatement.
CESTAT Upholds CST Demand, ₹6.43 Crore Penalty On Kedia Vanaspathi, Rejects Consignment Sale Claim
Case Title : M/s. Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 287
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 May 2026 upheld the tax demand and penalty against Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd., holding that a dealer seeking exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 must prove, with prescribed evidence, that inter-State movement of goods arises from consignment transfers and not sales. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeals and confirmed the demand after holding that the company failed to prove that the transactions were consignment transfers.
CESTAT Allahabad Says Customs Cannot Reassess Value Of Goods After Clearance For Home Consumption
Case Title : Uttam Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70027 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 290
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently set aside a customs duty demand of over ₹10.22 crore against Uttam Steel Alloys after finding multiple flaws in the department's case, including its attempt to enhance the value of goods after they had already been cleared for home consumption. A coram of Judicial Member P K Choudhary and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar held that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they cease to retain the character of imported goods, making the Customs Valuation Rules inapplicable.
Case Title : Abhishek Exporters v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51057 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 289
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has recently held that no central excise duty could be levied on the domestic sale of marble slabs and tiles by Abhishek Exporters, a 100% export-oriented unit, after finding that cutting imported marble blocks into such products during 2002 to August 2005 did not amount to manufacture. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed appeals filed by Abhishek Exporters and connected appellants against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.07 Crore Service Tax Demand, Upholds Cenvat Credit On Running Bills
Case Title : M/s. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner of Central GST Commissionerate- Udaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50823 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 291
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of more than ₹3.07 crore against Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, along with interest and penalties, in a dispute over availment of Cenvat credit on running account bills and measurement books. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked and that credit could not be denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed.
WhatsApp Service of SCN Not Recognised Under Central Excise Law: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sridhar V Naidu v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54731 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 292
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on Monday held that service of a show cause notice through WhatsApp is not a legally recognised mode of service under the Central Excise Act. It set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.28 lakh raised against a person engaged in services relating to sale of advertisement space in print media, also finding that the bulk of the demand was time-barred and the balance unsustainable for want of evidence of fraud or wilful suppression.
Case Title : Unnati Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51812 of 2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 293
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently held that the export of the pharmaceutical product in question containing 1% Ergotamine did not require prior clearance from the Narcotics Commissioner, setting aside a ₹50,000 penalty imposed on customs broker Unnati Cargo. The single-member bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta held that the product could at best be treated as a preparation of Ergotamine and not as “Ergotamine and its salts,” the category requiring prior clearance.
Case Title : Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 50853, 50854 & 50898 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 294
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a more than ₹7.18 crore demand, along with interest and penalties, raised against Hindustan Zinc Limited over electricity wheeled out from its captive power plant to sister concerns and the state distribution utility. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to such electricity amounted to non-availment of credit.
Case Title : Vikash Security Services v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51720 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 295
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has recently held that the tax department cannot sustain a service tax demand by invoking the extended limitation period solely on the basis of discrepancies between service tax returns and third-party TDS/ITR data. The tribunal held the department must independently verify whether taxable services were actually rendered before raising such a demand. It accordingly set aside a ₹7.67 lakh demand against Vikash Security Services.
Statutory CAMPA Deposits Not Consideration For Taxable Service Under Finance Act: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, Indore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54719 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 296
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 25 May held that mandatory Net Present Value (NPV) deposits made into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) for obtaining forest clearance cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 7.64 crore along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 297
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has a wide ambit and includes services having even an indirect nexus with manufacturing or business activities. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by Hero MotoCorp Ltd (formerly Hero Honda Motors Ltd) and set aside the demand raised by the Department.
Case Title : M/s Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Customs,Airport & Air Cargo Commissionerate, Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75677 of 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 298
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that franchise fees, advertisement and promotional expenses, and corporate marketing fees paid under brand licensing arrangements for Tommy Hilfiger and French Connection eyewear are not includible in the assessable value of imported goods. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan reasoned that the expenses are not linked to the import transaction or a condition of sale under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and set aside a customs duty demand against Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : M/s. M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75303 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 300
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed an appeal by M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited, holding that customs authorities could not apply laboratory findings from two live consignments of imported mica to 72 past consignments without independent evidence that the earlier imports were identical. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, however, upheld the reclassification of the two live consignments under Customs Tariff Heading 6814 and the consequential differential duty demand.
Case Title : Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41355 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 299
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a customs order confiscating sanitary napkin imports worth over ₹2.12 crore. It found that the adjudicating authority failed to properly examine the importer's claim that it qualified as an MSME, along with other contentions on the applicability of BIS compliance norms. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the Commissioner's order could not be sustained.
Case Title : Ravi Dhanwariya v. Commissioner of Customs Export, ICD TKD, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51731 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 302
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a ₹3 lakh penalty imposed on a customs broker in a case relating to the alleged overvaluation of export goods by Sharp Enterprises. The tribunal held that there was nothing on record to show that he was involved in, or had knowledge of, the alleged overvaluation. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed: “There is also nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the export goods were overvalued.”
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Order Classifying Kitchen And Household Accessories As Furniture Parts
Case Title : Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50541 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 301
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside an order classifying imported kitchen and wardrobe storage products as furniture parts and held that they are classifiable as kitchen and household articles or furniture fittings under Chapters 73 and 83 of the Customs Tariff. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, which had classified the imported goods as furniture parts.
Case Title : RRB Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41599/2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 303
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has set aside a ₹1.59 crore service tax demand raised against RRB Energy Ltd on payments made to overseas entities for technology transfer and wind turbine development services. The tribunal held that the department failed to establish that the transactions were taxable as Intellectual Property Service or Consulting Engineering Services. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar passed the order while allowing RRB Energy's appeal. The appeal challenged an order that had confirmed service tax demands, interest, and penalties on services received from entities based in the Netherlands and Germany.
Case Title : Simplilearn Solutions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21314 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 304
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by a majority ruling, has held that when an adjudication order is received by an authorized representative of an assessee, it amounts to valid service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing an appeal begins from the date the representative receives the order. The case arose from a refund claim filed by Simplilearn Solutions Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. When the company challenged that decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed its appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
Case Title : Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Alwar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 305
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside a ₹22.59 lakh CENVAT credit demand, along with interest and penalty, raised against Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. over waste and scrap that arose during the manufacture of scooters, motorcycles, and their parts. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed Honda's appeal and set aside the impugned order. The bench observed, “Waste and scrap is never manufactured by any manufacturer. It is not even a byproduct. It arises in the course of manufacture of the final product.”
CESTAT Chennai Backs Load-Port CE Certificate Over Local CE Report, Restores Declared Import Value
Case Title : Shri Hari Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41684 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 306
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs authorities' enhancement of the value of imported second-hand machinery after finding that the enhancement was based on a local Chartered Engineer's certificate that did not disclose the basis for the revised valuation. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that Customs authorities had discarded the load-port Chartered Engineer's certificate relied upon by the importer and adopted the valuation contained in a local Chartered Engineer's certificate without sufficient justification.
Case Title : Punjab Advertising Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 2671 of 2012
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 307
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by Punjab Advertising Co. It held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements formed part of the taxable value of the advertising services provided by it. At the same time, it held that the value of printed flex material supplied by Sonia Plastics could not be included in the value of the taxable service. The decision was delivered by a division bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar.
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.
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Confirms ₹2.5 Lakh Profiteering By Kumar 70 MM For Ticket Price Hike Despite GST Cut
Case Title : DGAP vs. Kumar 70 MM
Case Number : NAPA/22/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 6
The Delhi Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 30 January 2026 held Hyderabad-based Kumar 70 MM cinema hall liable to deposit Rs. 2,50,148.39 for failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found that the theatre had raised ticket prices above normal MRP despite a GST rate reduction from 18% to 12% for tickets up to Rs. 100 and from 28% to 18% for tickets above Rs. 100.
GSTAT Delhi Upholds ₹90.9 Lakh Profiteering Finding Against Wai Wai Noodles Maker
Case Title : DGAP vs. C.G Foods
Case Number : NAPA/99/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has ordered C.G. Foods, the maker of Wai Wai instant noodles, to deposit Rs. 90.9 lakh after holding that the benefit of a GST rate cut was not passed on to consumers. The order was passed by a single-member bench of Anil Kumar Gupta, which agreed with the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering that the company increased base prices even after the tax rate on instant noodles was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from November 15, 2017.
Case Title : Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST
Case Number : APL/1/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 7
In its first paperless judgment delivered after fully virtual hearings and its first decision in a statutory second appeal, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that if allegations of fraud (Section 74 of the CGST Act) do not stand, the case cannot be converted into a normal short-payment proceeding (Section 73) and decided at the appellate stage. Since it became operational in September 2025, the tribunal had so far been dealing only with anti-profiteering matters. This is its first judgment in a matter outside that subject jurisdiction.
Case Title : DGAP vs. AJ Enterprises
Case Number : NAPA/2/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
Holding that the franchisee increased base prices on the very date the GST rate on restaurant services was reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent, the GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has upheld findings that a Pune-based Subway outlet at Amanora Mall profiteered ₹13,32,322 by neutralising the tax benefit meant for consumers. “The Respondent's action of increasing the base price on the very same date on which the notification reducing rate of tax came into force indicates that Respondent has willfully increased the basic price of the aforesaid items to maintain the same MRP that existed till 14.11.2017. Resultantly, the benefit of reduced tax rate could not be passed on to consumer,” Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held on Friday.
GSTAT Delhi Orders Panchsheel Buildtech To Return ₹98 Lakh To Homebuyers In Anti-Profiteering Case
Case Title : DGAP vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/59/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 9
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 February upheld an anti-profiteering charge against Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and directed it to return Rs. 98 lakh to homebuyers of its three Noida-based residential projects. Technical Member A. Venu Prasad found the company liable for profiteering for non-passing of the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal held that Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies and a penalty of 10 percent of the profiteered amount would be leviable if repayment was delayed beyond 20 March 2026.
No Pre-Deposit For Revenue In GSTAT Appeals; Principal Bench Issues Instructions For Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench has clarified that appeals filed by the Revenue will not require payment of pre-deposit or court fee while issuing instructions on the documents that must accompany appeals filed before the Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In instructions dated March 10, 2025, the tribunal stated that appeals filed through Form APL-05 (appeal filed by Revenue) must include soft copies of the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal, statement of facts, and grounds of appeal.
GSTAT New Delhi Orders ₹47.71 Lakh Refund In Anti‑Profiteering Case, Holds Penalty Non‑Retrospective
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/113/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 11
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi directed Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer, to pass on Rs. 47.71 lakh, along with interest, to homebuyers for failing to transfer GST input tax credit benefits to them. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad allowed the appeal filed by the Director General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP), holding that the developer had engaged in profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It further clarified that the penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be applied retrospectively.
Interest On Profiteered Amounts Must Run From Date of Collection: GSTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/130/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 12
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi on 20 March held that interest on profiteered amounts must be paid from the date of collection of excess amounts. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad rejected the contention that interest should run only from project completion. He wrote: “Rule 133(3)(b)… expressly empowers the Authority to order return of the amount… along with interest… from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of its return. The provision is mandatory in nature”, while directing a real estate developer to refund ₹11,91,763 to homebuyers.
GSTAT Confirms Anti-Profiteering Demand Against Real Estate Company, Directs Refund Of ₹17.75 Lakh
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti Profiteering, DGAP V. Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : NAPA/132/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 13
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 23 March confirmed an anti-profiteering demand against Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd, a real estate developer, directed it to pay Rs. 17,75,622 along with applicable interest to homebuyers. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain accepting the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), recorded: “the report of the DGAP dated 18.12.2024 is accordingly accepted.”
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Unnathi Associates
Case Number : NAPA/129/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 14
Recently, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), in New Delhi, held that liability to pay interest on profiteered amounts arises from the time of supply, that is, when excess consideration is collected from buyers, and not from the date of obtaining a completion certificate. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order on 19 March in an appeal filed by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) against Unnathi Associates, developer of the “Raunak Heights” project in Thane.
GSTAT Orders LIC HFL Care Homes To Refund Rs 2.31 Crore To 240 Homebuyers For GST Profiteering
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/112/PB/2025
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd. guilty of profiteering and directed it to refund Rs 2.31 crore with 18% interest to 240 homebuyers for failing to pass on additional input tax credit (ITC) benefits available after the introduction of GST from July 1, 2017. A coram of President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order in proceedings arising from an investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP).
GSTAT New Delhi Confirms No Profiteering By IJM Raintree Park, Dismisses Homebuyer's Objections
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. IJM Raintree Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : NAPA/128/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 16
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 1 April upheld the closure of anti-profiteering proceedings, finding that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to the developer after the introduction of GST. A Bench of Judicial Member Mayank Kumar Jain rejected objections raised by a homebuyer against the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 8 January 2025 concerning alleged non-passing of GST input tax credit benefits in a housing project.
GSTAT New Delhi Holds No ITC Benefit Arises For Homebuyers In Fully Post-GST Construction
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Sobha Limited
Case Number : NAPA/98/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 17
On 2 April, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that no input tax credit (ITC) benefit was required to be passed on to homebuyers where the entire construction and transaction took place after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain upheld the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 21 August 2025 in DG Anti Profiteering v. Sobha Limited. He observed: “no benefit of ITC would be available to the Complainants as the price of the flat had been fixed after taking into account the incremental ITC that would have become available to the Respondent subsequent to introduction of GST, if any,”
GSTAT New Delhi Finds No Profiteering By Samridhi Realty After Excess ITC Benefit Passed To Buyers
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/150/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 18
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 2 April, held that there is no contravention of anti-profiteering provisions where a developer has already passed on input tax credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers in excess of the amount required under Section 171 of the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta disposed of proceedings against Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report.
GSTAT Transfers Marvel Vinyls Appeal To Ghaziabad Bench, Orders Seamless Digital Handover
Case Title : M/s Marvel Vinyls Limited v. Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Meerut & Ors.
Case Number : APL/9/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 20
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 April 2026 laid down that registry systems must ensure seamless tracking of appeals transferred between Benches by maintaining spreadsheets and e-registers, with periodic reviews to prevent cases from being “lost in transit”. A Bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta directed transfer of the appeal filed by Marvel Vinyls Limited to the Ghaziabad State GSTAT Bench after holding that it did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Bench.
GSTAT Delhi Upholds Anti-Profiteering Order Against Builder, Directs ₹63.93 Lakh Refund
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Siddha Infradev LLP
Case Number : NAPA/138/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(DEL) 23
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has upheld anti-profiteering proceedings against Siddha Infradev LLP and directed the builder to refund ₹63.93 lakh, along with 18% interest, to nine eligible homebuyers after finding that it failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit in its Kolkata housing project. A single-member bench of Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta, ruled, “Procedural delays by a statutory authority, in the absence of any prescribed consequence for lapse of such timeline, cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of consumers.”
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.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Electric Bus Rental Services With Operators Attract 18% GST As Electricity Not 'Fuel': Gujarat AAR
Case Title : JBM Ecolife Mobility Surat P Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/13
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has held that the rental of electric buses with operators by JBM Ecolife Mobility in Surat will attract 18% GST, ruling that electricity cannot be treated as “fuel” to claim a lower tax rate. The bench of Member (CGST) Vishal Malani and Member (SGST) Sushma Vora passed the ruling. JBM Ecolife Mobility operates 150 air-conditioned electric buses in Surat and is paid a fixed ₹59.29 per kilometre under its contract. It approached the Authority to determine whether its bus rental service would be taxed at 5%, 12% or 18% GST, specifically whether it could claim the lower rate available where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration.
Case Title : Sanjaykumar Ishwerlal Sadadiwala v. Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/14
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that coaching services provided by Surat-based Friends Classes to students of Standards 5 to 12 are taxable at 18% GST and do not qualify for exemption available to educational institutions. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Malani and SGST Member Sushma Vora held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an “educational institution” under the GST exemption framework and therefore could not claim exemption from GST available to qualifying educational institutions.
Case Title : In re Unitech Engineers
Case Number : 01/ODISHA-AAR/2026-27
The Odisha Authority for Advance Ruling has recently ruled that a sub-contractor supplying Coursera user licences to the Odisha Skill Development Authority cannot claim GST exemption as an education service, ruling that its role was limited to enabling access to third-party digital content rather than imparting education. “The applicant does not conduct training and no faculty, curriculum control, or instructional responsibility lies with the applicant. The role of the applicant is limited to facilitating access to third-party educational content. Further, under the MOU dated 24.12.2023, Coursera provides rights to OSDA to access its platform and the platform hosts courses and specializations from world class universities and instructors. However, neither the Applicant nor Coursera is obligated under the MOU to deliver any Education and Training to the technical students. The courses are made available; the act of teaching is performed by thirdparty universities and instructors on Coursera's platform, not by the Applicant. Therefore, the supply cannot be classified as education service.”, it ruled.
Gujarat AAR Declines To Answer GIFT SEZ Co-Developer's GST Zero-Rating Query On SEZ Supplies
Case Title : In Re: Waystar Properties LLP
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/19
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has declined to answer whether endorsement by the Specified Officer is mandatory for claiming zero-rated GST treatment on supplies involving Special Economic Zone entities and whether alternative documentary evidence could suffice. It held that the applicant's queries fell outside the scope of advance ruling jurisdiction. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Muni and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling on an application by Waystar Properties LLP, a co-developer in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT SEZ).
Case Title : In Re: Apar Industries Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/15
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Apar Industries Ltd. can avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and input services used for setting up a Continuous Catenary Vulcanization (CCV) tower at its manufacturing facility. The tower is used in the manufacture of insulated electrical cables. A bench comprising CGST Member Vishal M. Ladani and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling in an application filed by Apar Industries Ltd.
Gujarat AAR Rules 'Black Mineral Water' Classifiable As Mineral Water, Taxable At 5% GST
Case Title : In Re: Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/16
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) on 8 May 2026 held that “Black Mineral Water” marketed under the brand “ALVA” by Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd. qualifies as mineral water under HSN 22011010 and attracts GST at 5%. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Varma and CGST Member Vishal Malani held: “The applicant's product contains added minerals only and contains no flavouring or sweeteners & therefore the product squarely fits within the scope of HSN 22011010.”
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.
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling
DMF, NMET Contributions Form Part Of Mining Royalty; GST Only On NMET: Telangana AAAR
Case Title : Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.
Case Number : Order-In-Appeal No. AAAR/1/2026
The Telangana State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that statutory payments made to the District Mineral Foundation and the National Mineral Exploration Trust are not voluntary contributions. It ruled that these payments are mandated amounts linked to mining royalty and made in the course and furtherance of business. GST, however, is payable only on NMET contributions and not on payments made to DMF.
GST On Iced Tea 5%, Beverages Without Fruit Pulp Or Juice 40%: West Bengal AAR Clarifies
Case Title : Sage Organics Private Limited
Case Number : WBAAR 30 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that non-alcoholic beverages not containing fruit pulp or fruit juice fall under other non-alcoholic beverages and attract GST at 20% CGST and 20% SGST, while iced tea preparations and tea extracts are classifiable as extracts, essences and concentrates of tea, and preparations based on such extracts, attracting GST at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST. A coram of Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, Shafeeq S and Senior Joint Commissioner, SGST Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti said, “In our considered view, the non-alcoholic beverages as specified by the applicant will come under serial no. 2 of Schedule III and as such will be taxed @ 20% CGST + 20% SGST.”
Biodegradable Carry Bags Eligible For 5% GST Subject To Notification Conditions: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re Pradeep Verma
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/22
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in February, held that concessional GST at 5% applies to biodegradable carry bags only if the goods satisfy the condition of being biodegradable under the relevant notification. It also held that it cannot determine whether a product meets scientific standards of biodegradability or compostability. The Authority Bench comprising Utkarsha and Dr. Akhedan Charan disposed of an application filed by Pradeep Verma concerning classification and GST applicability on carry bags made from materials such as PBAT and PLA.
Concessional GST On Irrigation Rubber Rings Conditional On Hard Rubber Use: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re M/s Arti Pitaliya
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/21
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that rubber rings used in sprinkler or drip irrigation systems will qualify for concessional Goods and Services Tax (GST) only if they are made of hard rubber and used exclusively for irrigation purposes, and not otherwise. The Bench comprising Members Utkarsha and Dr Akhedan Charan was hearing an application filed by Arti Pitaliya, a Jaipur-based manufacturer of rubber components used in irrigation systems.
Corpus Fund By RWAs Taxable As Advance For Future Services, GST Payable On Receipt: Karnataka AAR
Case Title : In Re Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association
Case Number : KAR.ADRG/08/2026
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that corpus or sinking funds collected by residential associations constitute consideration for future supply of services and are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the time of receipt, treating such collections as advances under the GST law. A Bench comprising Members Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and Sivakumar S Itagi, while hearing an application filed by Liberty Square Apartment Owners Association, ruled that GST liability arises at the stage of receipt of corpus funds.
Gujarat AAAR Upholds Denial Of ITC On Lease Rent For Industrial Land Used In Factory Construction
Case Title : M/s. Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/46
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on lease rentals for land taken on a long-term lease for setting up a factory is blocked under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, as the provision bars credit on inputs and input services used for construction of immovable property. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall dismissed the appeal by Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the denial of ITC on GST paid under reverse charge on lease rentals for land used for construction of factory premises.
Gujarat AAAR Confirms Geomembrane Classification As Textile Product For Technical Use
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner, Central GST v. Shree Ambica Geotex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAAR/APPEAL/2026/03
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GAAAR), in April 2026, upheld the classification of geomembranes under HSN 5911 as textile products for technical use, holding that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Gujarat High Court. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall, upheld Advance Ruling No. GUJ/GAAR/R/2022/46 dated 18 October 2022, and rejected the Revenue's challenge seeking classification of the product under HSN 3926 as an article of plastic.
GSTAT
Additional ITC Benefit Must Be Passed On Even If Unutilised: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/114/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 21
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has recently observed that a GST-registered taxpayer cannot avoid passing on additional input tax credit benefits to buyers merely because the credit remains unutilised. A bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad made the observation while adjudicating anti-profiteering proceedings concerning Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Private Limited. “The mere accrual of additional ITC reduces the cost of supply, irrespective of whether such credit is utilised or remains accumulated in the electronic credit ledger. The Respondent may claim refund of unutilised ITC, if admissible under the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules; however, this does not dilute the statutory obligation to pass on the benefit of such ITC to the recipients.”
No Anti-Profiteering Violation Where Works Contract Fully Executed After GST Rollout: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. Belhekar & Kale Associates
Case Number : NAPA/237/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 22
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi on 5 May closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Pune-based works contractor Belhekar & Kale Associates and held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit required passing on since both procurement and execution of the contract took place after the rollout of GST. Technical Member Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the investigation report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and held that no contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been established. The Tribunal observed: “despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded, the Applicant neither appeared before this Tribunal nor placed any written submissions on record, which means the applicant has nothing to say on the DGAP's report.”
GSTAT Extends Relaxed GST Appeal Filing Guidelines On Portal Till December 31, 2026
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Principal Bench, New Delhi, has extended till December 31, 2026 the relaxed filing framework for appeals on the GSTAT Portal, citing difficulties faced by appellants during the initial phase of the portal's functioning. The extension has been granted through an office order dated May 14, 2026. The order continues the earlier relaxation measures introduced through an office order dated January 20, 2026 and instructions issued on March 10, 2026.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed that all pending matters and future filings before its Principal Bench and State Benches must first be placed before Division Benches. The law permits matters involving tax liability or other issues valued below ₹50 lakh and not involving any question of law to be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President. In an office order dated May 14, 2026, GSTAT President Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra said that under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act and Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, such matters may be listed before a Single Bench with the approval of the President.
Case Title : A & T Security Services Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner Central Tax Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : APL/1/DEL/2026
On 18 May 2026, the Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that where service of notices through the GST portal is rendered ineffective due to credential-related issues, additional modes of service such as registered post and speed post may be directed in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Judicial Member Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Technical Member Rajiv Kapoor allowed the request of A & T Security Services Private Limited and directed that notice in the GST appeal be served through registered post, speed post, the GST portal, and email.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Cigarettes Turn Costlier From Today As 40% Sin Tax Kicks In
Cigarettes will get 40% costlier from today, as higher taxes on tobacco products notified by the Union government take effect from February 1, 2026. The Ministry of Finance had issued the notification on December 31, 2025, replacing the GST compensation cess with a 40 per cent sin tax under the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While the notification was issued earlier, the revised levy becomes applicable from today.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Sharp Cuts In TCS On Overseas Travel, Education And Medical Remittances
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday also proposed significant reductions in tax collection at source (TCS) rates on overseas travel and certain foreign remittances. Presenting the direct tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a cut in TCS on foreign tour packages. “I propose to reduce TCS rate on the sale of overseas tour programme packages from the current 5 per cent and 20 per cent to 2 per cent, without any stipulation of amount,” she said.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Withdrawal Of Select Customs Exemptions, Tariff Simplification
The Union Budget 2026–27 proposed changes to India's customs duty framework aimed at simplifying the tariff structure and reducing long-standing distortions. Presenting her indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To further simplify the tariff structure, support domestic manufacturing, promote export competitiveness, and correct inversion in duty, I propose to remove certain long-continuing customs duty exemptions on items which are being manufactured in India or where imports are negligible.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 presented on Sunday proposed customs duty relief for personal imports and medicines used in the treatment of serious illnesses. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To rationalise the customs duty structure for goods imported for personal use, I propose to reduce the tariff rate on all dutiable goods imported for personal use from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed changes to customs rules governing baggage clearance during international travel to address passenger concerns and align duty-free allowances with current travel patterns. Presenting the indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “I propose to revise provisions governing baggage clearance during international travel to address genuine concerns of passengers.”
Budget Proposes Hike In Securities Transaction Tax On Futures And Options
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed an increase in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on futures and options trades. Presenting the Budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced higher STT rates for derivative transactions. “I propose to raise the STT on Futures to 0.05 per cent from the present 0.02 per cent,” she said.
Union Budget 2026: FM Proposes Rollout Of Customs Integrated System (CIS) In 2 Years
Presenting the Union Budget 2026, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the rollout of a new Customs Integrated System to overhaul customs processes. “I propose that a Customs Integrated System will be rolled out in two years as a single, integrated and scalable platform for all customs processes,” Sitharaman said.
AIDC Levy On Aircraft Tyres To Continue At 0.5 Percent After Budget 2026-27
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, as part of the Union Budget 2026–27, clarified that new pneumatic tyres of rubber used on aircraft will continue to attract Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) at 0.5%. The clarification applies to goods falling under tariff item 4011 30 00. AIDC is a customs duty levied under Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2021. It is charged on notified imported goods.
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a key change in the GST treatment of certain cross-border services, especially those provided by Indian intermediaries to overseas clients. Under the current GST regime, the place of supply for cross-border services is governed by Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. This section applies when either the supplier or the recipient of a service is located outside India.
Finance Bill, 2026 Proposes Enabling GST Appellate Tribunal To Hear Advance Ruling Appeals
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a change in the GST appellate framework that will allow the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear a limited category of advance ruling appeals. GSTAT will continue to function as the appellate forum for regular GST disputes such as classification, valuation, and input tax credit. The proposed change does not alter this role.
Changes In Interest Calculation For GST Monthly Return From January 2026; GSTN Issues Advisory
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory setting out changes to interest computation and related system features in the monthly return GSTR-3B (GST). The changes will apply from the January 2026 tax period onwards. From January 2026, interest shown in Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B (GST) will be calculated after adjusting the minimum cash balance available in the Electronic Cash Ledger from the due date of filing until the date of tax payment. The change follows the proviso to Rule 88B(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Interest will be worked out on the net tax liability for the period of delay.
UltraTech Cement Receives GST Demands of ₹15.26 Crore from Tamil Nadu Authorities
UltraTech Cement Limited recently informed stock exchanges that the State GST authorities in Tamil Nadu have issued two orders raising a cumulative tax demand of Rs. 15.26 crore, along with interest and penalties, on allegations of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. As per the disclosure, the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Trichy, and were received by the company on January 29, 2026.
Baggage Rules 2026 Allow Returning Indians To Bring Jewellery Upto 40 Gram Duty-Free
The Central Government has notified the Baggage Regulations, 2026, giving a limited category of international passengers a special duty-free allowance for jewellery. Under the Regulations , Indian residents and tourists of Indian origin who have lived abroad for more than one year can bring jewellery over and above their personal effects into India without paying customs duty, within specified limits.
CBIC Extends Deferred Import Duty Facility To Compliant Businesses From March 2026
On 1 February 2026, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) proposed extending the deferred payment of import duty facility to compliant businesses from 1 March 2026 through Notification No. 13/2026. Per the Notification, the facility will be available until 31 March 2028, and payments will be monitored through Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES) dashboards.
DGFT Imposes Import Curbs On Umbrellas With CIF Value Below ₹100
On 5 February 2026, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued a notification amending the import policy for umbrellas from “Free” to “Restricted”. The change applies to umbrellas classified under Chapter 66 of Schedule I (Import Policy) of India's Import Trade Classification (Harmonised System), 2022.
GSTN Introduces New Online Module To Unblock Barred Returns On Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has now launched a new “Application for Unbarring Returns” module on the GST Portal, allowing taxpayers to seek online removal of system-imposed restrictions on filing GST returns. The module provides a legal and digital process to address cases where returns are barred after three years of non-filing.
“Additional Notices” Now Merged With Main “Notices and Orders” Tab On GST Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has merged the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab with the main “Notices and Orders” section on the GST Portal, consolidating all issued notices and orders into a single interface. Taxpayers can now view all notices and orders on the portal by navigating to Dashboard → Services → User Services → View Notices and Orders.
No GST Dues Pending For Release To States, Centre's Response Informs Lok Sabha
In a written response to the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Finance Shri Pankaj Chaudhary clarified that the government has released Rs. 2,01,195 crore of GST compensation to States and Union Territories for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022. He further confirmed that no GST dues are currently pending for release to the States, except for Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, where final payments remain on hold due to the non-receipt of the required Accountant General (AG) certificates.
GSTN Activates Withdrawal Facility For Small Taxpayers To Opt Out Of Simplified Registration Option
As of 21 February 2026, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has activated the facility to file Form GST REG-32 for taxpayers who wish to opt out of registration under Rule 14A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. To mitigate compliance burdens, as part of the 'Next Generation GST Reforms', a Simplified GST Registration Scheme for Small and Low-Risk Businesses under Rule 14A was introduced in 2025.
CBIC Issues Simplified Procedure For Export Cargo Returning To India After Strait Of Hormuz Closure
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued a circular prescribing a simplified procedure for handling export cargo that is returning to Indian ports after vessels were unable to reach their destinations due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted amid ongoing conflict in the Gulf region, forcing several commercial vessels to turn back before reaching their destination ports.
Govt Spent ₹88.74 Crore On Advertising 'GST Bachat Utsav': Finance Ministry Tells Lok Sabha
The Union Government spent Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the “GST Bachat Utsav," a publicity campaign to spread awareness about GST rate rationalisation, the Ministry of Finance informed the Lok Sabha in response to a question on March 9, 2026. Responding to a question raised by Jagdish Chandra Barma Basunia, BJP MP from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, the Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, stated that the government incurred Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the campaign. GST Bachat Utsav was a 100-day, nationwide, post-56th GST Council meeting campaign launched on September 22, 2025, to pass on reduced tax benefits to consumers.
The Union government has informed the Lok Sabha that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework does not provide separate tax treatment for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) or foods high in fat, sugar, or salt (HFSS), and that no formal assessment has been undertaken on the potential health and economic benefits of imposing higher taxes on such products. Responding to a question asked by Congress MP G. Kumar Naik from Raichur in Karnataka, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said on Monday that GST rates and exemptions are prescribed on the recommendations of the GST Council, which consists of members of the Union and State governments.
GSTAT Rajkot Bench Starts Functioning
The GST Appellate Tribunal's Rajkot bench has begun functioning, with authorities issuing a trade notice on March 18 to inform businesses and tax professionals that the long-awaited forum is now operational in Gujarat. The tribunal is working from its office at the RK Iconic building on 150 Feet Ring Road in Rajkot. Officials said appeals can be filed through the GSTAT online portal, which was rolled out last year, and a toll-free helpline has also been provided to help users facing difficulty while filing cases.
GSTAT Kolkata Bench Starts Functioning
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has commenced functioning, with all appeals from designated jurisdictions now required to be filed before it. The Tribunal clarified that it will exercise jurisdiction over West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Public Notice No. 01/2026 dated 23.03.2026, issued by the GSTAT Kolkata Bench. The office of the Kolkata Bench is located at 2/5, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata–700027 (Old Door Sanchar Bhawan).
Centre Designates 22 GSTAT Judicial Members As Vice Presidents For State Benches
The Ministry of Finance has designated Judicial Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) as Vice Presidents for State GSTAT Benches across India, in exercise of powers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Office Order No. 01/2026, dated 23 March 2026 states: “The President of India… is pleased to designate the following Judicial Members of GSTAT as Vice Presidents of their respective state benches.”
Union Budget 2026-27: Centre Notifies Finance Act, 2026
The Central Government has notified the Finance Act, 2026, giving statutory effect to the budget proposals for the financial year 2026-27 after receiving presidential assent on March 30, 2026. The Act, published in the Gazette of India, states, "An Act to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2026-27.” Most provisions of the legislation will come into force from April 1, 2026, including those relating to income-tax rates and amendments to tax laws, while a limited set of provisions dealing with implementation and administrative matters will be brought into effect on dates to be notified separately.
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has advised taxpayers to approach adjudicating authorities for issuance of a rectification order in cases where they are unable to file appeals on the GST portal due to a “NIL” demand reflected in adjudication orders. In an advisory dated April 3, 2026, GSTN noted that taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing appeals in such cases despite underlying disputes on tax liability.
Centre Raises Gold, Silver Import Duty To 15% From 6% Effective Today
The Central Government has increased the effective import duty on gold and silver to 15% from 6% through a set of customs notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, with the revised rates taking effect from May 13. The revised duty structure doubles the basic customs duty on the two precious metals to 10% from 5%, while increasing the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess to 5% from 1%, taking the overall effective levy to 15%.
Centre Temporarily Waives Customs Duty On Cotton Imports Till October 31
The Centre on Saturday temporarily waived customs duty and Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) on cotton imports for a five-month period beginning June 1, 2026. A notification issued by the Department of Revenue said cotton falling under tariff heading 5201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, will be exempt from the whole of the customs duty leviable under the tariff schedule as well as the whole of the AIDC.
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.