SUPREME COURT
Booking Speakers For Events Is Not Event Management, No Service Tax Under That Head: Supreme Court
Case Title: HT Media Limited v. Principal Commissioner, Delhi South Goods and Services Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 14
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 23525 - 23526 OF 2017
The Supreme Court has ruled that merely booking speakers through agents at an event does not amount to 'event management' and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under that category The Court held that fees paid by HT Media Limited to international speakers through overseas booking agencies for the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit were wrongly taxed under the Finance Act, 1994.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 18
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24729 of 2019
Case Title : Adani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court has held that the Union government cannot revive a customs duty levy that has already been declared unlawful by issuing subsequent or amended notifications imposing the same levy in a different form or at a different rate. A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by Adani Power Limited and set aside a 2019 judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had refused to grant refunds of customs duty paid on electricity supplied from a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to the domestic tariff area (DTA).
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Physical Service Of Notices Necessary After Cancellation Of GST Registration: Allahabad High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 5
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2026
Case Title : Sun Infrasite Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court on 19 January held that any adjudication notice issued after the cancellation of a GST registration must be served physically to the assessee to comply with the principles of natural justice. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a challenge against a notice issued to the petitioner three years after its GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner argued that it could not access the portal to which the notice had been uploaded, amounting to a violation of natural justice.
Andhra Pradesh HC
GST Not Payable On Interest, Penalty For Delayed Chit Payments: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Ushabala Chits Private Limited v. The Commissioner of State Tax and Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No.14745 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 11
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that interest and penalties collected by a chit fund foreman from subscribers who delay payment of installments do not attract Goods and Services Tax, ruling that such amounts are exempt under GST law. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T. C. D. Sekhar said the foreman is legally required to ensure timely payment of the prize amount even if subscribers default.
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Quashes Order In Vistex ITC Refund Case, Remands Issue For Holistic Review
Case Title : Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4852 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 38
The Bombay High Court has set aside an appellate order rejecting the refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) claimed by Vistex Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellate authority must examine ITC refund claims on export of services in light of the full service agreement and relevant circulars before treating a provider as an intermediary. The Court observed that a selective reading of clauses is insufficient and that the matter requires fresh and holistic consideration in accordance with law.
Mandatory Three-Month Gap Required Between GST Show Cause Notice And Final Order: Bombay High Court
Case Title : A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its authorized signatory and Director Ms. Suchishree Mukherjee W/o Sandeep Kunte vs. The Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 7941 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 44
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has set aside a GST adjudication after holding that tax authorities are required to maintain the statutory minimum gap of three months between issuing a show cause notice and passing the final order. The court said that failure to do so renders the proceedings unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta said, "we hold that it is mandatory to keep gap of three months between issuance of notice and passing final order under subsection (2) read with sub-section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST Act."
Bombay High Court Stays ₹57.29-Crore GST Demand Against Mad Over Donuts Operator
Case Title : Himesh Foods Pvt. Ltd Versus Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 718 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 46
The Bombay High Court has stayed a Rs 57.29 crore goods and services tax demand against Himesh Foods Pvt. Ltd., which operates the Mad Over Donuts chain. The court noted that companies facing the same tax issue have already received interim protection. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe referred to a December 2025 order passed in petitions filed by Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and other companies.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Notices Issued For Multiple Financial Years Together
Case Title : (M/s. AR Traders, through its proprietor Shri Abdul Rashid s/o Abdul Aziz Vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur – II & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 8397 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 45
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside two GST show cause notices issued to AR Traders after finding that the tax department had wrongly combined multiple financial years into single proceedings. A Division Bench of Jutsices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the GST law does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years in a single proceeding. The court said the notices issued to the firm did not follow the statutory framework governing tax periods and limitation.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Over Reliance On Undisclosed Back Portal Data
Case Title: Vedant Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax, Jorasanko & Jorabagan Charge & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 20
Case Number: WPA 12654 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court recently set aside a GST demand raised against a transport company after holding that the tax department relied on undisclosed back-office data. Justice O.M. Narayan Rai held that the tax department relied on “data available in GST B.O. portal”, leaving the petitioner without an effective opportunity to respond.
Case Title : Chatterjee Concern, a Partnership Firm and Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 6739 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 29
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex parte order of the GST appellate authority passed due to non-appearance caused by the illness of the taxpayer's authorised consultant. It stressed that taxpayers cannot be penalised for circumstances beyond their control. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the appellate authority failed to grant the taxpayer a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Delhi HC
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 62
Case Number : W.P.(C) 655/2026
Case Title : GLO Interio v. Sales Tax Officer, Ward 15, Zone 2
The Delhi High Court has set aside the retrospective cancellation of GST registration despite the assessee's/taxpayer's delay in challenging the action, holding that a vague and non-speaking show cause notice denies the opportunity of a hearing to the assessee and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “we cannot be a blind spectator to the denial of opportunity of hearing as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the petitioner. A vague Show Cause Notice is nothing less than a document which is not providing sufficient and complete opportunity of hearing to the parties like the petitioner.”
Department Cannot Deny Interest On Delayed VAT Refund After Blaming Assessee: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Fair Deal Leather Suppliers v. The Value Added Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1220/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 66
The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department can't deny statutory interest on delayed Value Added Tax (VAT) refund by shifting the blame onto the taxpayer (assessee). A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a writ petition filed by an assessee seeking interest on VAT refund that had remained unpaid for 15 years despite the refund claim having attained finality through appeal proceedings.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Refuses Daughter's Plea For Parents' Interim Bail In GST Evasion Case
Case Detail: E. Ishitha & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Bangalore
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 8
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 23 of 2026 (GM -RES)
The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant interim bail to a husband and wife arrested in a GST enforcement action, holding that the case did not present circumstances warranting the court's intervention at the writ stage. A Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, in an order pronounced on January 12, noted that the court did not find any illegality in the manner of arrest and that statutory remedies for seeking bail were already available under criminal law.
Kerala HC
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 10
Case Number : WA NO. 111 OF 2026
Case Title : Vinod Mukundan v. Union of India
The Kerala High Court on Monday granted interim relief to retired employees and family pensioners of Union Bank of India. It directed the Union government, GST authorities, and Union Bank of India not to levy GST on health insurance premiums paid under the group medical insurance policy for the policy year 2025–26. A Division Bench of Justices V.G. Arun and Harisankar V. Menon passed the order while admitting a writ appeal against a Single Bench decision.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Against Detention Of Hindustan Coca-Cola's Goods In GST Dispute
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 9
Case Number : WA NO. 1659 OF 2020
Case Title : The Assistant State Tax Officer & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by the state tax authorities against Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited over the detention of its goods during transit under the GST Act. The court held that the detention was not justified because the consignment was accompanied by all required documents. A Division Bench of Justice V.G. Arun and Justice Harisankar V. Menon said proceedings under Section 129 of the Central and State GST Acts were not called for in the facts of the case.
Assessee Entitled To Discharge Certificate Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme Despite Portal Closure
Case Title : Geo Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 502 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 13
On 19 January, the Kerala High Court held that the Central tax authorities are legally obliged to issue a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Disputes Resolution) Scheme, 2019, once the assessee has paid the full settlement amount within the prescribed time. The Court clarified that the non-functioning of the online portal cannot justify withholding the certificate. In such an event, the certificate had to be issued manually, establishing that payment under the scheme creates a binding statutory right to receive the discharge certificate.
Kerala High Court Holds GST Portal Upload As Valid Service, Dismisses Petition Filed After Two Years
Case Title: Dhanyamol V v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 113 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 14
On 19 January, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Abhinaya Digital Solutions challenging a GST demand order, holding that uploading an order on the GST portal constitutes valid service and that a challenge filed more than two years after the order suffers from unexplained delay. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. declined to entertain the petition against an assessment order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking recovery of input tax credit claimed on closing stock as of 30 June 2017.
Madhya Pradesh HC
No Review Of Writ When GSTAT Appeal Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 6
Case Number : Review Petition No. 2479 of 2025
Case Title : Vansh Trading Com. Through Proprietor Ravi Arvind Yadav vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others
In a case involving bogus invoicing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 January reiterated that when an appellate remedy is available before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), review of an earlier order which declined a writ petition was not warranted. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a review petition against its 5 August 2025 decision, which had relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before GSTAT.
Case Title : Dheeraj Gupta vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number : Misc. Criminal
Case No. 40741 of 2025 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 9
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a GST fraud case but with a strict condition. The court has ordered him to share his location with investigators by dropping a Google Map pin, warning that any breach would cancel the protection. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt passed the order on January 15, 2026, while allowing the anticipatory bail plea filed by Dheeraj Gupta. The Court said custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage and observed that detaining the applicant would adversely affect his business.
Orissa HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd
Case Number: OTAPL No. 50 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 4
The Orissa High Court has rejected the customs department's argument that test reports issued by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory should be given primacy over load-port test reports issued by a NABL-accredited private laboratory and dismissed a revenue appeal against Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. in an iron ore export duty dispute.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman declined to interfere with a December 4, 2024 order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, which had set aside a Rs 13.50 crore export duty demand raised against the company. The court held that the department's appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.
Orissa High Court Quashes ₹8.62-Crore Ex-Parte GST Demand Against Jindal Steel
Case Title : Jindal Steel Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Goods and Service Tax Odisha
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.25955 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 6
The Orissa High Court has set aside an ex-parte GST demand raised against Jindal Steel Limited, holding that mere uploading of notices under the “Additional Notices/Orders” tab on the GST portal does not constitute valid service and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found that the taxpayer was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the State Tax Officer.
Rajasthan HC
Can GST Be Levied On Sale of Vacant Land? Rajasthan High Court To Examine
Case Title : Ashish Garg v the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd
Case Number : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20007/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 1
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has issued notice to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd on a petition raising the issue of whether GST can be levied on the sale of vacant land in relation to an e-auction. Justice Maneesh Sharma, while hearing the matter, directed that the respondents shall not cancel the subjected e-auction if the petitioner deposits the demand amount excluding the disputed GST component within 15 days.
CESTAT
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax Demand Based Only On Service Tax–Income Tax Return Mismatch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 17
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85019 of 2024
Case Title : One Vibgyor Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST Mumbai East Commissionerate
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside a service tax demand that was raised on the basis of a mismatch between income tax returns and ST-3 returns (half-yearly service tax returns filed under the pre-GST regime). The tribunal noted that the demand was confirmed without proper service of notice and without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.
Free Materials In Works Contracts Pre-July 2009 Excludible From Service Tax: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 20
Case Detail: Jagaji Construction Company vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vadodara
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 10009 of 2014- DB
On 15 January, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the value of free materials provided under an indivisible Works Contract cannot be included in taxable value for service tax purposes for contracts executed before 7 July 2009.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh set aside the portion of the service tax demand calculated on 933.355 MT of steel, valued at Rs. 2.56 crore, against the appellant construction company, and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to redetermine the service tax liability and penalties.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 21
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL No. 843 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 844 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 852 of 2009 EXCISE APPEAL No. 911 of 2009
Case Title : Prakash Jokhani vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and connected matters
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, has set aside a CENVAT credit demand against a textile exporter, holding that credit could not be denied merely because Rule 12B, which earlier allowed textile traders using job workers to pay excise duty and take credit as manufacturers, was later omitted from the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A bench of Judicial Member S K Mohanty and Technical Member M M Parthiban said the issue was covered by existing law and circulars.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s.Hyundai Transys India Private Limited with M/s.Hyundai Transys India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 24
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40335 of 2024, Customs Appeal No. 40292 of 2025
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that auto parts imported by Hyundai Transys India Private Limited for use in intelligent manual transmission vehicles were wrongly classified by customs authorities, leading to unsustainable duty demands. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao ruled that the actuator assembly and tube connector assembly used in iMT vehicles cannot be treated as “clutches and parts thereof” under the customs tariff.
Case Title: Accentive (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 23
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40364 and 40365 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled against Accentive (India) Private Limited, a loyalty management company, holding that it cannot retain CENVAT credit on goods and gift vouchers supplied under customer reward programmes because the activity amounts to trading. While the tribunal upheld the tax demands and interest running into crores of rupees, it waived penalties for periods prior to May 14, 2015.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 18
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52841 OF 2018
Case Title : G.R. Infraprojects Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CGST, Udaipur
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has recently set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claimed by G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. for resurfacing works carried out at an Indian Air Force runway. The tribunal held that the retrospective exemption restored by Parliament squarely applied in the instant case.
In an order dated January 14, 2026, a coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside the orders of the department and the Commissioner (Appeals) that had denied the refund.
Place Of Removal In FOR Sales Cannot Be Presumed As Factory Gate: CESTAT Chennai Reiterates
Case Title: Madras Cements Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 25
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 221 of 2009
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the “place of removal” in FOR (Free on Road or Rail) destination sales cannot be mechanically assumed to be the factory gate and must be determined on the basis of facts and contractual terms. The tribunal set aside and remanded a service tax order denying CENVAT credit on outward transportation services after finding that the tax authorities had confirmed the demand without examining whether the disputed clearances were in fact made on a FOR destination basis.
No Countervailing Duty On Silk Fabrics Imported In 2012–13: CESTAT Chennai
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 26
Case Title: M/s. M.K.P. Fashions v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40319 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) clarified that countervailing duty (CVD) cannot be levied on imported silk fabrics during 2012–2013, when excise duty on such fabrics was fully exempt under the relevant notification. Further that customs proceedings are deemed concluded once duty and interest are paid before a show-cause notice is issued. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao set aside the demand for CVD, confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties imposed on the taxpayer. They disagreed with the revenue that the condition of non-availment of CENVAT credit disentitled imported silk fabrics from exemption of CVD.
Amazon Data Hosting On Principal-to-Principal Basis Not Liable To Service Tax: CESAT Delhi
Case Title : Amazon Internet Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST (East)
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55106 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 26
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 January held that data hosting services provided by an Indian entity to an overseas cloud computing service provider on a principal-to-principal basis do not qualify as “intermediary services.” They constitute an export of service, and are therefore not liable to service tax in India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside service tax demands aggregating to about Rs. 80 crores raised against Amazon Internet Services Private Limited (the appellant) for services rendered to Amazon Web Services, Inc., USA.
Case Title : Global Links vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51134 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 19
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has set aside the revocation of a customs broker licence granted to Global Links. The tribunal held that, on the facts of the case, the action could not be sustained, as it was based only on statements that were never admitted as evidence. A coram comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao found that the adjudicating authority relied on statements recorded during the investigation without following the procedure prescribed under the Customs Act as well as Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Cash Calls By Oil India Are Capital Contributions, Not Taxable Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Oil India Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.51690 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL)32
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that 'cash calls' collected by Oil India Limited from non-operator members of an unincorporated joint venture for petroleum exploration do not constitute taxable services. As such, contributions are capital contributions and not consideration for any service.
A Bench of CESTAT, comprising Ms. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), allowed the appeal filed by Oil India Limited, quashing the service tax demand along with interest and penalties. The Tribunal held that activities performed by a co-venturer or operator for the common objective of a joint venture cannot be treated as services rendered to another person for consideration under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes Service Tax Demand On Charitable Society Running Educational Activities
Case Title : Rajput Sabha Bhawan vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51289 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 31
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by a charitable society, holding that it cannot be subjected to service tax for educational and community development activities where fees or contributions are collected for charitable purposes, and the society had a bona fide belief it was exempt. A Bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon set aside Rs. 3.2 crores demand against a charitable society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies (the appellant), noting that the society's primary and dominant purpose was charitable, and that the collection of nominal fees for training, accommodation, or cultural programmes did not constitute profiteering or personal gain.
Printing On Government-Supplied Watermarked Paper Does Not Attract Excise Duty: CESAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 28504 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (BAN) 30
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that printing carried out on government-supplied watermarked paper for issuance of Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) does not attract central excise duty, and is classifiable under a nil-rated tariff entry. The Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao allowed the appeal filed by Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a duty demand of Rs. 7.73 lakh, along with interest and penalty, for the period September 2008 to June 2010.
Case Title : Trishaa Rose Garden Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41381 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 35
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that landscaping and garden maintenance services provided under recurring maintenance contracts are classifiable as taxable “management, maintenance or repair services” and are liable to service tax. Dealing with a dispute over the classification of services provided by a plant nursery engaged in maintaining gardens and parks for municipal authorities and corporate entities, the tribunal noted that service tax was leviable on specified taxable services during the relevant period.
Textile Processing Once Classified As Manufacture Can't Be Reclassified As Service: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Sarat Industries Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76611 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 33
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that landscaping and garden maintenance services provided under recurring maintenance contracts are classifiable as taxable “management, maintenance or repair services” and are liable to service tax. Dealing with a dispute over the classification of services provided by a plant nursery engaged in maintaining gardens and parks for municipal authorities and corporate entities, the Tribunal noted that service tax was leviable on specified taxable services during the relevant period.
GSTAT
GSTAT President Orders Lenient Scrutiny Of GST Appeals In Initial Filing Phase
Order Number: GSTAT/Pr. Bench/Portal/125/25-26
The President of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi Principal Bench, recently directed all GSTAT registries to adopt a lenient approach in scrutinising GST appeal filings, limiting objections during the initial phase to only substantive defects that affect the merits of the case. The direction was issued by an office order dated 20 January 2026 to address the practical difficulties faced by appellants in filing appeals on the newly operational GSTAT portal.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CBIC Grants One-Time Relief To Cross Recessed Screws From 2025 Quality Control Order
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has notified a one-time exemption for cross recessed screws from compliance under the Cross Recessed Screws (Quality Control) Order, 2025 (QCO). In an Instruction dated 17 January 2026, CBIC clarified that import consignments of cross recessed screws with inward entry dates between 1 November 2025 and 12 January 2026 would be exempt from QCO compliance.