HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 11760/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 27
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 1 April set aside a show-cause notice issued to Avanti Feeds Limited, holding that State GST authorities have no jurisdiction to assess or recover Integrated GST (IGST) on imported goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar ruled that such powers vest exclusively with customs authorities under the Customs Act. The Bench observed: “Another aspect of this matter which would also require to be noticed is the language of the proviso to Section 5(1). The said integrated tax would be levied and collected at the point when duties of customs are levied. In a large number of cases, customs duties would be levied and collected at the point of import. An officer under the State GST Act or the Central GST Act, who has been notified as the proper officer, situated in a State, which is not the entry point, of the goods, into India, would not be able to exercise jurisdiction at the point of entry of goods. Such jurisdiction can obviously be exercised only by the customs officers under the Customs Act.”
GST Refund Limitation Must Exclude COVID Period Under Section 54: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : MC Wane India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 26816/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 11 March held that while computing the limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of exclusion of time during the COVID-19 period must be granted. Section 54 governs the process for claiming refunds of tax, interest, or any other amount paid under GST. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the rejection of a GST refund application filed by McWane India Private Limited on the ground of limitation and remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration. The Bench directed: “...the order of rejection of refund, dated 16.08.2024, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and without going into the question of limitation.”
GST Proceedings Against A Dissolved Company Lack Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Tata Capital Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No.6868 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 30
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March held that GST proceedings against a non-existent or dissolved company lack jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside an assessment order passed against Tata Capital Limited, observing: “The proceedings, which had been initiated, against the dissolved company, before the appointed date, would now have to be taken up against the petitioner company and not the dissolved company.”
Case Title : M/s P. Venugopal Naidu v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.: 33250 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 31
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 March 2026 held that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) qualifies as a “Governmental Authority” and “Governmental Entity” under GST notifications. However, the Court clarified that contractors can claim the concessional 12% GST rate only if the works they execute meet the conditions specified in the notifications. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who executed contracts for TTD between 1 July 2017 and 1 July 2022.
Bombay HC
Case Title : JSW Steel Limited vs. Electricity Inspector & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12477 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 192
The Bombay High Court has held that the exemption from payment of electricity duty granted to Mega Projects under the Package Incentive Scheme, by a 1999 notification issued under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, continues to operate so long as the Eligibility Certificate remains valid, where the notification links the benefit to the eligibility period mentioned in the certificate. “The plain language of the Notification, read with the language of the Addenda III and the language of the Eligibility Certificate, leaves no doubt that the exemption granted under Section 5A of the BEDA,1958 [by issuing the Notification], is directly linked to the Eligibility Certificate. In fact, the language of the Notification clearly suggests that the intention of the State was to directly link the benefit of the exemption under the Act with the Eligibility Certificate granted under the Scheme,” the court observed.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Denies Summary Judgment In GST Compliance Dispute, Says Trial Mandatory
Case Title : M/S. S. G. KAREL AND SONS JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S MADAN LAL AGARWALLA JEWELLERS AND OTHERS
Case Number : IA No. GA-COM/5/2025 In CS-COM/669/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 82
The Calcutta High Court on 1 April held that objections relating to GST compliance and supply of goods raise triable issues that require a full trial and refused to grant summary judgment in a commercial dispute. Justice Aniruddha Roy was hearing an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success. He observed: “Once factual enquiry is required to be made on the basis of the case and counter-case made by the parties to a suit, it inevitably gives rise to triable issues for which a properly constituted trial is required.”
Delhi HC
Case Title : Avik Televentures Private Limited v. Office Of The GST Officer Ward 71
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2339/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 345
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order of Rs 26.7 crore against a company engaged in the business of trading and export of branded mobile phones, holding that it was denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing by the tax authorities. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed that the timeline granted to the petitioner to respond to the Department's queries and to appear for a personal hearing was inadequate and violative of principles of natural justice.
Case Title : Vinod J Sharma v. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : WP(c) 2129/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 352
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Union of India in a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, observing that there is prima facie merit in the petitioner's arguments on legislative competence and arbitrariness of the levy. The Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition filed by Vinod J. Sharma, wherein the validity of the cess imposed on pan masala has been questioned.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : Bobismrita Chetia Gogoi v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/956/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 10
The Gauhati High Court has held that where GST registration is cancelled for non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer furnishes all pending returns and clears tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may consider dropping the cancellation proceedings in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancellation of GST registration entails serious civil consequences, and therefore, if the taxpayer complies with the statutory requirements, the authorities should consider restoration of registration in accordance with law.
Karnataka HC
Pigmy Agents Are Employees, Commission Paid Them Not Subject To GST: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.100806 OF 2024 (T - RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 47
The Karnataka High Court on 8 April, held that banks engage pigmy (deposit collection) agents as employees, not independent service providers. Therefore, the commission paid to them does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST). A Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank's writ petition and quashed all show cause notices issued by GST authorities under the reverse charge mechanism. He held: “The show cause notices issued by the respondent proceed on an erroneous premise, making an attempt to describe the pigmy agents as business facilitators. The foundation of the show cause notice, in the light of the aforesaid narration, is itself infirm…. Pigmy agents employed by the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, can never be treated as business facilitators for them to be coming under the GST and the services rendered by these pigmy agents are in the course of their employment with the Bank as pigmy agents, which is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III quoted supra.”
Kerala HC
Case Title : Muhammed Ali Haji P.P. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 20625, 20672, 20745 & 20753 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 63
The Kerala High Court on 3 March quashed a customs confiscation order involving 25 kilograms of gold, holding that denying the petitioners an effective opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses caused prejudice and violated principles of natural justice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A, sitting as a Single-Judge Bench, allowed writ petitions challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Customs authority, which had confiscated the gold and imposed penalties. He observed: “The denial of opportunity caused prejudice to the petitioners” and the proceedings “cannot be treated as the proper compliance of the principles of natural justice.”
Madras HC
Case Title : M/s.Sanmar Matrix Metals Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)No.368 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 95
The Madras High Court has held that where the Department appropriates amounts during the pendency of an appeal against a Excise duty demand despite a subsisting stay order, such amounts must be treated as paid under protest, and a refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. The bench stated that "If the revenue is permitted to adopt such novel ways to adjust the amounts by getting over an order of stay and thereby indirectly recovering the money, it cannot be construed as a duty payable as on the date of such appropriation."
Punjab & Haryana HC
Valid GST Notice Must Disclose Details And Basis of Liability: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner
Case Number : CWP-4495-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 19
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 April held that a GST show cause notice lacking specific allegations, supporting material, and proper reasoning is legally unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Alka Sarin set aside a show cause notice issued to Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Before raising a demand, the purpose of putting an assessee to notice, is to make the assessee aware of the department's intent to enable the assessee to effectively respond. A vague notice does not fulfil such object. Serving of a non-specific notice is nothing but an empty formality which does not fulfil the afore object and is even otherwise, violative of the principles of natural justice.”
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Defreezes Accounts As GST SCN Only Uploaded On Portal, Never Served
Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Jain & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5272/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has directed de-freezing of the bank accounts of business entities and their proprietors from Sawai Madhopur after noting their submission that the SCN concerning their GST liability was only uploaded on the portal without being served through any other prescribed mode. Granting interim relief, a division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal said it would be just and proper to allow operation of the accounts, subject to the deposit of 10% of the total recovery amount, if not already deposited.
CESTAT
Recovery Proceedings Can Be Initiated Only Against Persons Liable To Pay Excise Duty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Prashant Rajnikant Mehta & Anr. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85764 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 158
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 April held that proceedings under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be initiated against persons who are not chargeable with duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the demand confirmed against individuals who were not proprietors of the exporting firm, holding: “...proceedings under Section 11A ibid can only be initiated against such person and not on the present appellants… since the said appellants were not liable for payment of central excise duty… 11A proceedings cannot be invoked… from the present appellants.”
Mere Sale Of Advertising Space Without Creative Input Not Taxable Under Finance Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Digital AD Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42020 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 143
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that mere sale of advertising space, without any element of designing, conceptualising or preparing advertisements, does not amount to taxable “advertising agency service” under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “under Section 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax applies only where services of making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement are rendered. As per CBEC's clarification dated 16.08.1999, these should involve activities such as designing, visualising, or conceptualising advertisements. Mere sale of space does not attract tax as 'Advertising Agency Service'. Accordingly, display of a company name simpliciter, as in this case, does not amount to advertising agency service, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Service Tax On Services Received From Abroad Classified As IPR
Case Title : M/s MLR Motors Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27348 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 144
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that services received from abroad classified as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) services attract service tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotish and Judicial Member Angad Prasad partially allowed an appeal by MLR Motors Ltd, allowing the taxpayer to discharge such liability through CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1 July 2012.
Production Work For Broadcaster Liable To Service Tax Even With Copyright Transfer: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Sathya Jyothi Films v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.42361 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 145
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that service tax is leviable on the production of a television serial on behalf of a broadcaster under “programme producer's service”, even where the agreement provides for perpetual assignment of copyright. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. dismissed the appeal filed by Sathya Jyothi Films and upheld the service tax demand with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Penalty Against Biofuels Company As Service Tax Paid Before SCN
Case Title : Universal Biofuels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26117 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 168
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad has recently set aside penalties imposed on Universal Biofuels Pvt. Ltd., holding that the tax department should not have issued a show cause notice after the company had already paid the full service tax with interest. A coram of Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed, “In view of the factual matrix of this appeal, we find that in this case, in the first place, the SCN itself should not have been issued as the appellant had already paid the entire service tax along with applicable interest. Further, we find that the issue of payment of service tax under the category of MRSAS itself was under litigation and differing judgments were passed. There is nothing on record to substantiate that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant for non-payment of service tax with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we find that the appellants were eligible under section 73(3) and the reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on section 73(4) is not correct."
CESTAT Hyderabad Remands Iron Ore Export Valuation Dispute After AO Ignored Contract Addendum
Case Title : M/s Kalinga Commercial Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - CUS
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 26820 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 153
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April, held that the assessing authority must consider contractual modifications and supporting documents while finalizing export valuation and refund claims. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh assessment, observing that it had failed to appreciate modifications to the original contract, including an addendum reflecting changes in Fe content and price.
One Department Wing Cannot Contradict Another On Excise Duty Assessment: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41399 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 159
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 April held that Central Excise authorities cannot question or reclassify goods already assessed by Customs at the time of import. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar set aside the demand of CENVAT credit on imported software by Emerson Process Management Chennai Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal observed: “When payment of CVD & SAD was accepted and the Customs classification is not disputed by the Customs authorities… it is very strange and uncomfortable situation when another wing of the same Department calls in question the classification of the same goods…”
Total Turnover Determines Eligibility For Tax Exemption, Not Just Taxable Services: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52404 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 169
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 April, held that to claim exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the “turnover” of a business entity includes its entire income and not just taxable services. Therefore, if the total turnover exceeds the prescribed limit, a refund of service tax cannot be granted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the order rejecting its refund claim of service tax paid under the reverse charge mechanism on legal consultancy services.
Case Title : M/s. Yokohama India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51369 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 170
On 7 April, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi allowed Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd. to claim a cash refund of CENVAT credit paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for the pre-GST period. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta clarified that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act protects such vested rights and the refund cannot be denied simply because the tax was paid after GST or due to alleged suppression without evidence.
CESTAT Delhi Says Govt Reimbursement Grant For Daawat Foods Plant Not Taxable As Service
Case Title : Daawat Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central : Respondent Excise, Bhopal-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51632 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 171
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has granted relief to Daawat Foods Ltd., holding that grant-in-aid received by it from the Government as reimbursement of expenditure is not liable to service tax as it does not constitute consideration for any service. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya ruled that the financial assistance did not give rise to any service provider–recipient relationship.
Importer Not Liable For Post-Sale RSP Revision By Dealers: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51905 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 154
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 April, held that an importer cannot incur liability for differential customs duty based on a post-sale upward revision of Retail Sale Price (RSP) by independent dealers, once the parties complete the sale on a principal-to-principal basis. A Bench comprising President Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside the demand raised against Richemont India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the importer loses control over the goods after such sale and cannot bear liability for subsequent price changes.
Tobacco Pouches Up To 10g Not Liable To MRP-Based Excise Duty: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 1871 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 146
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that small tobacco pouches of 4 grams and 9 grams are not liable to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing a batch of appeals filed by Shiva Tobacco Co. and others. If Section 4A (MRP-based valuation) does not apply, valuation falls back to Section 4 (transaction value). The bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar delivered the ruling.
Case Title : NCC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 274 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 172
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, has ruled that mobilisation advances received prior to the introduction of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, are not liable to service tax at the stage of receipt, granting partial relief to NCC Ltd. The Hyderabad Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad And Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed that the statutory framework prior to 1 March 2011 did not mandate payment of service tax on advances before actual provision of service, and emphasized that liability arose only in accordance with the law prevailing during the relevant period.
Case Title : M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30602 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 173
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that allegations of export undervaluation and demand of differential duty cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent and admissible evidence establishing receipt of additional consideration, setting aside the order against M/s Temple City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed, “While there is no denial that charges of under valuation can be established on the basis of preponderance of probability, but it cannot be based on presumptions and assumptions. Suspicion, how so ever, grave cannot replace proof.”
GSTAT
GSTAT New Delhi Confirms No Profiteering By IJM Raintree Park, Dismisses Homebuyer's Objections
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. IJM Raintree Park Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : NAPA/128/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 16
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 1 April upheld the closure of anti-profiteering proceedings, finding that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to the developer after the introduction of GST. A Bench of Judicial Member Mayank Kumar Jain rejected objections raised by a homebuyer against the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 8 January 2025 concerning alleged non-passing of GST input tax credit benefits in a housing project.
GSTAT New Delhi Holds No ITC Benefit Arises For Homebuyers In Fully Post-GST Construction
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Sobha Limited
Case Number : NAPA/98/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 17
On 2 April, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that no input tax credit (ITC) benefit was required to be passed on to homebuyers where the entire construction and transaction took place after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain upheld the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report dated 21 August 2025 in DG Anti Profiteering v. Sobha Limited. He observed: “no benefit of ITC would be available to the Complainants as the price of the flat had been fixed after taking into account the incremental ITC that would have become available to the Respondent subsequent to introduction of GST, if any,”
GSTAT New Delhi Finds No Profiteering By Samridhi Realty After Excess ITC Benefit Passed To Buyers
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/150/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 18
The New Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 2 April, held that there is no contravention of anti-profiteering provisions where a developer has already passed on input tax credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers in excess of the amount required under Section 171 of the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta disposed of proceedings against Samridhi Realty Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the Director General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) closure report.