SUPREME COURT
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.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
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.”
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.
Bombay HC
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.
Delhi HC
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.”
Gujarat HC
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.
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.”
Karnataka HC
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.
Madras HC
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.
CESTAT
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.
GSTAT
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
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.