HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Stays GST Order Confirming ₹13 Crore Tax Demand Against Dell India Arm
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 801 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 19
The Allahabad High Court has recently stayed the operation and effect of a GST demand order against Dell International Services India Private Limited, the Indian services arm of US technology major Dell, after recording its submission that a jurisdictional error had crept into the proceedings. Appearing for the company, counsel submitted that besides violation of principles of natural justice, the adjudicating authority had confirmed a higher demand than what was proposed in the show cause notice.
Case Title : Oppo Mobile India Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1351 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 20
The Allahabad High Court has recently granted interim protection to Oppo Mobile India Private Limited in its challenge to the validity of Section 15(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after an adjudication order confirmed a total tax demand of Rs 599.07 crore along with equivalent penalty and interest under Section 74 of the Act, according to the writ petition. The order in challenge dated December 12, 2025, confirmed demands of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Central Goods and Services Tax, and State Goods and Services Tax across multiple registrations of the company for financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24, the petition states.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Check-Posts Cannot Value or Confiscate Goods in Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders and Others v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 541/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 21
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities stationed at GST check-posts lack jurisdiction to examine the valuation of goods or to confiscate and levy penalties merely because the goods are in transit. The Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, observed that disputes relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined only by the jurisdictional assessing authority and not by proceedings initiated at the stage of interception under Sections 129 or 130 of the CGST Act. Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, empower tax authorities to detain and confiscate goods/conveyances in transit for violating GST laws.
Case Title : Balaji Ready Mix Concrete v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.11644 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that the value of materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient for manufacture of a product cannot be included in the taxable value under GST, setting aside a tax demand raised on a ready mix concrete supplier. A bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed that when components required for manufacturing a product are supplied free of cost, their value is not liable to tax.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 100
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders passed by customs authorities determining the interest payable on an IGST refund to Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities failed to explain how the interest had been calculated under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe found that the impugned orders contained no reasoning showing that the statutory provision governing interest on delayed refunds had been applied.
Case Title : M/s. Vidarbha Beverages & Ors Vs Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 105
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, recently following a Gujarat High Court ruling, has held that assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and does not constitute “supply of services” under the GST law, and therefore GST cannot be levied on such transactions. A division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Vidarbha Beverages and its partners challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 demanding GST of Rs 59.40 lakh along with interest of Rs 40.98 lakh on the alleged non-payment of GST on the transfer of leasehold rights.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. M/S Pro-Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SERTA 12/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 220
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) permitting verification of certificates for claiming service tax exemption on services rendered to foreign embassies and diplomatic missions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul held that no substantial question of law arose from the CESTAT's decision, which had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the exemption certificates submitted by the assessee.
Service Taxability Appeals Lie To Supreme Court, Not High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi, South Commissionerate v. M/S Bureau Of Energy Efficiency
Case Number : SERTA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 221
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a service tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that questions relating to taxability fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, and can be examined only by the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “we have gone through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent in the matter of M/S Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd (referred supra). In the said matter, by relying on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Spicejet Ltd. (referred supra), it has been held that the issue in relation to taxability, an appeal before the High Court under Section 35G is not maintainable, and the only remedy available is an appeal to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”
Case Title : The Ferry International v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 723/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 222
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere presence of the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court, when the cause of action arises from summons and demands issued by authorities located outside Delhi. The Division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter challenging summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Zonal Unit at Ahmedabad and a consequential demand raised by customs authorities, on the ground that the petition was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court also held that it was not maintainable in the light of the earlier proceeding.
Case Title : Shri Himanshu Gupta v. The Commissioner Of Central Excise
Case Number : CEAC NO. 48/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 224
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not absolute, and may be lawfully denied in fact-specific circumstances, particularly where the witnesses are closely connected to the assessee and the allegations are supported by independent corroborative evidence. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, holding that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had erred in denying cross-examination of witnesses.
Karnataka HC
Electronic Credit Ledger Cannot Be Blocked Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Jupiter Ventures v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3353 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 25
The Karnataka High Court on 25 February, held that the restriction imposed by blocking a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot continue beyond one year, and any continuation of such blocking after the statutory period is illegal. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by Jupiter Ventures challenging the action of the tax authorities in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger on 21 November 2024. The Court observed: "Rule 86A(3) clearly provides that any restriction imposed under this provision shall cease to have effect after one year from the date of imposition."
Kerala HC
GST Payable Separately On Municipal Works Contracts Unless Tender Includes It: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Ganga Constructions v. Assistant Executive Engineer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 4911 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 36
The Kerala High Court, on 12 February, held that contractors executing works for local self-government institutions are entitled to payment of GST over and above the contract value, and that such tax cannot be treated as included in the quoted rates unless the tender conditions expressly so provide. Harisankar V. Menon stated that once government circulars categorically mandate that tendered rates for public works are to be quoted exclusive of GST, the municipality cannot subsequently treat GST as included in the quoted contract value or seek recovery of amounts already paid on that basis.
Denial Of Input Tax Credit Limited To Depreciated Portion: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 23546 of 2024, 24348 of 2025 and 29087 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 46
The Kerala High Court on 18 February clarified that Section 16(3) of the CGST Act bars input tax credit only on the part of a capital good's tax component where depreciation is claimed, not on the whole tax component. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A quashed the show-cause notices issued to banking companies that had denied input tax credit on the entire tax component solely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion.
Madras HC
No Service Tax Exemption Where Overriding Commission Is Received In INR: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Translanka Air Travels Pvt Ltd v. M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 2873 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 59
The Madras High Court held that travel agents acting as General Sales Agents (GSAs) for foreign airlines cannot claim service tax exemption as an export of services when their overriding commission is received in Indian Rupees rather than convertible foreign exchange, even if the services are provided to foreign principals. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar held that exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and the condition requiring receipt in foreign exchange is mandatory.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities From Colleges Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court has held that affiliation fees collected by universities from colleges are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court ruled that such services do not fall within the GST exemption for services relating to the admission of students or the conduct of examinations. The Division Bench comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan answered a reference arising from writ petitions filed by Bharathidasan University challenging GST notices issued by the State tax authorities.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Additional VAT Surcharge Valid Over Concessional Tax: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : M/s Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and Others
Case Number : VATAP-83-2018 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 11
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 27 February, held that an additional VAT surcharge under Section 7A can be levied over and above the concessional tax payable under Section 7 on sales of declared goods made to registered dealers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. challenging assessment and appellate orders passed under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6501/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 9
The Rajasthan High Court has recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against JK Lakshmi Cement Limited over alleged VAT liability arising from diesel supplied to transport and mining contractors, holding that the company must respond to the tax authorities and raise its objections during the ongoing assessment inquiry. The dispute arose after the Commercial Taxes Department conducted a survey and investigation into the operations of the cement manufacturer.
CESTAT
CESTAT Sets Aside Rs 24.96 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Contractor Based Only On TDS Statement
Case Title : M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75643 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 100
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT has set aside a service tax demand of Rs 24.96 lakh against a Chakradharpur contractor, holding that his work for the Railways, exempt subcontracted projects, and construction of single residential units did not attract service tax. The bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that a demand cannot stand if it is based solely on Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry.
Case Title : R. Rajinikanth v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40776 & 40777 of2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 102
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai on Wednesday set aside a service tax demand of about Rs 56.84 lakh against veteran Tamil actor Rajinikanth, holding that renting a building for use as a hotel is excluded from service tax under the Finance Act even if the premises contain facilities such as a restaurant, banquet hall, conference hall, bar, and health club. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed, "Their presence enhances the commercial viability of the hotel, commensurate with its category or class. While such facilities may, in certain cases, be operated by entities other than the principal lessee, they continue to function predominantly for the benefit and use of hotel guests. Importantly, the existence of the impugned facilities has not been shown to results in a bifurcation of the use of the premises nor supports the inference that the property is partly deployed for independent or distinct commercial activities. They are hence a part of the hotel."
Customs Can Levy Duty On Modular Kitchens, Not Re-Determine Value Arbitrarily: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Aran Kitchen World (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40047 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 101
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs duty is applicable to imports of modular kitchens in CKD/SKD condition, but the declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of a weight-based comparison or administrative valuation guidelines. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, examined whether the Department was justified in rejecting the declared transaction value of modular kitchen imports solely on the basis of derived weight-based comparisons and administrative valuation benchmarks, despite the absence of evidence that the relationship between the importer and its foreign joint venture partner had influenced the price.