LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 02 - February 08, 2026
SUPREME COURT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
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.