SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors.
Case Number : Diary No. - 24607/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 153
The Supreme Court has held that the appeal filed by Telangana State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited against a reassessment order could not be rejected for non-payment of statutory pre-deposit, as the amount already deposited by it in the earlier round of litigation exceeded the 12.5% requirement under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan restored the Federation's VAT appeal before the appellate authority, holding that the statutory requirement stood satisfied.
Supreme Court Rejects Jharkhand's Plea Against SAIL, Upholds ₹30.29 Crore Input Tax Credit Relief
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors vs M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd
Case Number : Diary No. 18250 of 2026
The Supreme Court of India dismissed State of Jharkhand's special leave petition against Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) in a dispute concerning the transition of input tax credit (ITC) from the pre-GST regime, upholding the Jharkhand High Court's direction on January 30, 2025, to restore Rs. 30.29 crore with interest. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe found no ground to interfere with the high court's order and dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court Stays ₹14.91 Crore Customs Duty Recovery Against HP India, Issues Notice
Case Title : M/S. HP INDIA SALES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NSV)
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4206/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 162
The Supreme Court has stayed recovery pursuant to a Rs.14.91 crore customs demand against HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and issued notice in its appeal against a November 4, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). HP India's appeal challenges the CESTAT Mumbai order, which upheld the classification of its imported “HP Latex printers” as inkjet printing machines instead of inkjet printers, leading to the duty demand along with interest and penalty under the Customs Act.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Upholds Ghaziabad Property Tax Revision Based On Minimum Monthly Rent Rate
Case Title : Rajendra Tyagi and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others
Case Number : PIL No. 1427 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 32
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation's revision of property tax based on minimum monthly rent rates (MMRR) under the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. In a PIL challenging the revision of property tax and its enhancement based on MMRR, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held: “we neither find any error in determination of 'MMRR' based upon categorization/classification of the properties nor any illegality in the impugned decision of the respondents to revise/enhance the property taxes based upon 'MMRR'. The exercise undertaken by the respondents is found to be fully in consonance with the statutory provisions requiring no interference by this Court.”
Bombay HC
Case Title : V Ships India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 202
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders rejecting GST refund claims of V Ships India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellate authority failed to examine the terms of the service agreement before deciding whether the company's services were exports or intermediary services. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said the absence of any findings on the agreement, which was relevant to determining the nature of services, vitiated the appellate orders.
Case Title : Karl Mayer STOLL Textilmaschinenfabrik GmbH Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7882 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 203
The Bombay High Court has quashed show cause notices issued by customs authorities against a German textile machinery manufacturer and its Indian subsidiary, holding that the notices were without jurisdiction and that a foreign exporter cannot be made liable for alleged misdeclaration by Indian importers for a period prior to the 2018 amendment to the Customs Act. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that proceedings initiated against a foreign entity situated outside India were unsustainable in law.
Chhattisgarh HC
Summary Processing Cannot Decide Debatable ESI, EPF Claims: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title : Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : TAXC No. 152 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 8
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 16 April held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke summary processing powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to disallow claims involving debatable legal issues, including employee contributions towards ESI and EPF, as such adjustments fall outside the limited scope of prima facie scrutiny. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput allowed the appeal filed by Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd against the orders passed by the AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1993/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 375
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to entertain a challenge to a corrigendum allegedly expanding the scope of a show cause notice by including an additional financial year, holding that such issues require factual examination and are not suited for adjudication under Article 226 when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by Manpar Icon Technologies challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent corrigendum and the order-in-original confirming a tax demand of over Rs 42 lakh.
Case Title : Jaina Marketing and Associates v. Union of India & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1225/2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 383
The Delhi High Court has recently held that importers are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty in cases where prolonged delay in reassessment is attributable to the Department. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed, "For the delay in Department's passing of the re-assessment orders, the Petitioners cannot be blamed or expected to unduly suffer. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that in the said four writ petitions, the interest would liable to be paid to the Petitioners."
ARN Cannot Be Equated With Valid GST Registration Certificate: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt Ltd v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12042 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 386
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld Oil and Natural Gas Corporation's (ONGC) decision to reject a bid for failure to submit a valid Goods and Services Tax registration certificate at the time of bidding, holding that an Application Reference Number (ARN) cannot substitute a GST certificate in tender processes. A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt. Ltd., said: “An ARN is only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, whereas a GSTIN is granted only upon due verification and approval under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, an ARN cannot, in law, be equated with a valid registration certificate.”
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 110 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 52
The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory, and cannot be relaxed by tax authorities. However, in cases of genuine hardship, delay in filing refund claims may be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, subject to safeguards protecting the Revenue. The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind made the ruling. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides provisions for claiming refunds of excess GST paid by a registered person.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Energy Department
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1151/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 13
The Rajasthan High Court has held that electricity duty exemption on captive consumption of solar power promised under the Solar Policy, 2019 cannot be withdrawn retrospectively so as to divest accrued rights, ruling that UltraTech Cement Ltd. and other petitioners are entitled to the benefit for projects commissioned prior to the amendment. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal delivered the judgment.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE)
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos.9166 and 9354 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 13
The Telangana High Court on 8 April, held that a single, composite GST liability order against a company and its Managing Director cannot be used to deny them independent appellate remedies. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin allowed writ petitions filed by Sugna Metal Limited and its Managing Director, and directed tax authorities to issue separate orders. The judges held: “...,the Managing Director (petitioner in W.P.No.9166 of 2026), after obtaining a temporary registration, is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal and take all such grounds on facts and in law as are available to him…”
CESTAT
Case Title : Nishant Organic Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10505 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 174
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that freight and insurance charges are includable in the assessable value for excise duty where goods are delivered at the buyer's premises and not at the factory gate, thereby upholding the demand of duty, interest, and penalty. Referring to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the tribunal observed, "Above provisions clearly indicate that when excisable goods are not sold at the factory gate but the sale actually happens at any other place (which in this case is the customer's premises), the cost of transportation shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging excise duty."
Only Input Credit Used For Both Taxable and Exempt Activities Must Be Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40499 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 175
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has held that while reversing CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only common credit used for both taxable and exempted activities needs to be considered and not credit used exclusively for dutiable goods. The tribunal set aside the demands, interest, and penalties against Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.
CESTAT Chennai Allows ₹84 Lakh CENVAT Credit Claim By Komatsu India For Factory Expansion
Case Title : Komatsu India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41094 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 176
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to claim tax credit worth Rs 84.08 lakh on services used to expand its factory. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao noted that the company, which manufactures dump trucks, had added a new facility next to its existing plant to produce hydraulic excavators.
Case Title : CONCOR v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Imports
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51767 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 177
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the case of CONCOR, a custodian cannot be fastened with customs duty liability under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during its custody or tampering of seals of imported goods. A bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside the demand of Rs. 51.80 lakh and penalties imposed on Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR), holding that in the absence of evidence showing pilferage during custody or tampering of seals, duty liability cannot be imposed on the custodian.
Case Title : Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40161 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 178
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Jindal Aluminium Ltd., holding that exemption under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) cannot be denied merely due to the absence of country-of-origin markings on imported scrap goods. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Jindal Aluminium Ltd. and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had denied the benefit of Notification No. 046/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs-Kandla v. Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 11604 of 2016- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 182
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has upheld the reclassification of imported synthetic fabrics, holding that laboratory test results clearly disproved the importer's declaration and rejecting a retesting plea raised after 11 years, while remanding valuation and SEZ exemption issues for fresh adjudication. A bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the Revenue's appeal against relief granted to Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd., finding that the CRCL test report conclusively established the composition of the goods.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Penalty On Time Avenue, Finds No Link To Importer's RSP Misdeclaration
Case Title : Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51914 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 183
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 April set aside a penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed on Time Avenue Pvt. Ltd. under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the penalty under Section 112(b) could not be sustained in the absence of proof that the appellant knew the goods were liable to confiscation.
Case Title : K.A. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 185
CITATION : Customs Appeal No. 50622 of 2024
On 10 April, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that where imported goods are cleared under the IGCR procedure, the Department cannot allege excess imports without explaining how customs officers permitted such clearance. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 31.40 lakh against K.A. Enterprises. They observed: “In the absence of any recording as to which of the two Assistant Commissioners committed the irregularity, the demand of duty on the appellant cannot be confirmed.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Nikon ₹7.32 Crore Refund, Holds Claim Pre-Exemption Decision Is Not Maintainable
Case Title : Nikon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52552 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 186
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 6 April, held that a refund claim filed before final adjudication of the underlying exemption dispute is not maintainable, even where duty has been paid under protest. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Nikon India Private Limited and upheld rejection of its refund claim.
CESTAT New Delhi Allows Refund Of Service Tax On Cancelled Project, Rejects Limitation Bar
Case Title : Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax/Excise, Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51789 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 184
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 April held that authorities cannot deny refund of service tax paid on advances received for construction services on the ground of limitation, where the project is subsequently cancelled and the amounts are returned to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Reach Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter, holding that the time limit under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act does not apply in cases where service tax is paid on advances for construction services, the project is later cancelled, and the amounts are refunded.
Works Contract Road Construction Taxable, Refund Barred Under Unjust Enrichment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Sandeep Builders v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise-Jodhpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51487 Of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 382
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 16 April held that a service tax refund cannot be granted where the taxpayer has passed on the tax burden to the recipient, as such claims are barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the denial of refund to Sandeep Builders, noting that the activities undertaken by the company were correctly taxed as “Works Contract Services” under Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Biodegradable Carry Bags Eligible For 5% GST Subject To Notification Conditions: Rajasthan AAR
Case Title : In Re Pradeep Verma
Case Number : Advance Ruling No. RAJ/AAR/2025-26/22
The Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in February, held that concessional GST at 5% applies to biodegradable carry bags only if the goods satisfy the condition of being biodegradable under the relevant notification. It also held that it cannot determine whether a product meets scientific standards of biodegradability or compostability. The Authority Bench comprising Utkarsha and Dr. Akhedan Charan disposed of an application filed by Pradeep Verma concerning classification and GST applicability on carry bags made from materials such as PBAT and PLA.