SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV v. M/s Xerox India Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 5939–5941 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 257
The Supreme Court has held that Xerox India's practice of grouping, plugging and pinning imported photocopier modules according to customers' requirements, commonly known as "kitting", did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As no manufacturing activity was found, the company was not liable to pay central excise duty. The court reiterated that a process amounts to manufacture only if it results in a new product with a distinct name, character, and use.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Seeks Centre's Response On GST Appellate Tribunal Vacancies In Uttar Pradesh
Case Title : S.S. Pharma v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2982 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 59
The Allahabad High Court has sought an affidavit from the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India detailing the efforts being made to fill vacancies in the GST Appellate Tribunal benches in Uttar Pradesh. In a petition filed by S.S. Pharma, the issue of GST appellate tribunals not sitting was brought before the High Court. Justice Piyush Agrawal had directed the state counsels to seek instructions on the appointments, sittings, and disposal of cases by the Appellate Tribunal.
Bombay HC
Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mahapuja Ltd. Through Its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah v. The Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central Through Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 15871 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 435
The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more particularly where statute clearly provides for orders that are appealable. In such situations, it thus becomes incumbent upon the Court to separate the 'grain from the chaff' and judiciously exercise discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, in an exceptional case, under compelling circumstances."
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Riverdale World School v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : WPC No. 2390 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 21
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 31 July held that a municipal authority cannot reject a property tax exemption claim merely because a school did not submit its Section 12AA registration certificate under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which grants tax exemption to charitable institutions) along with its initial self assessment or representation. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu disposed of the writ petition filed by Riverdale World School, which challenged a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs. 30,808 towards property tax for the financial year 2020 to 2021.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Dismisses 19-Year-Old Sales Tax Reference On Video Cassettes For Non-Prosecution
Case Title : Casette Shoppe v. Commissioner Of Sales Tax Delhi
Case Number : ST.REF. 1/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 775
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 19-year-old sales tax reference concerning the tax classification of video cassettes for non-prosecution. A division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain had earlier observed that with the advancement of technology, the issue may have become purely academic. On Friday, the court dismissed the reference after observing that no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner-Casette Shoppe for several hearings.
Case Title : Ministry Of Railways v. The Assessing Azuthoirity & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13676/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 776
The Delhi High Court has recently reserved judgment in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Ministry of Railways challenging sales tax demands in relation to transactions involving the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC), nearly 20 years after the petitions were instituted in 2006. The division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain reserved judgment and asked the parties to file synopses, not exceeding five pages each, within three working days. The writ petitions were filed in 2006, challenging assessment orders dated March 30, 2006 that raised sales tax demands.
Case Title : Armour Security India Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10738/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 783
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST Appellate Authority is competent to decide what constitutes a "reasonable period" for issuance of a show cause notice under Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus refused to entertain a writ petition in this regard, by bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. The petition was filed by a security services company, challenging a show cause notice dated September 30, 2025 and the consequential demand order dated March 30, 2026.
Passenger Carrying Undeclared Gold Has No Entitlement to Seek Its Re-Export: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Oguljeren Derchiyeva v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6948/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that passengers who cross the Green Channel without declaring dutiable or prohibited goods cannot later seek re-export of the confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. For context, Section 125 empowers the adjudicating authority to grant an option to redeem confiscated goods upon payment of a redemption fine. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the provision is not an “entitlement” to re-export the goods.
Delhi High Court To Examine CAAR's Power To Void Customs Advance Rulings
Case Title : Le Mei Plastic Manufacturing Private Limited v. The Customs Authority For Advance Rulings, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : CUSAA 80/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 787
The Delhi High Court has admitted an appeal that will examine when the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) can declare an advance ruling void from the outset on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation of material facts. The appeal arises from the CAAR's exercise of its powers under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962, to declare the appellant's August 6, 2025, advance ruling void ab initio. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by a plastic manufacturing company challenging an order of the CAAR declaring its earlier advance ruling dated August 6, 2025 void ab initio under Section 28K of the Customs Act on the ground that it had allegedly been obtained by misrepresentation of material facts.
Delhi High Court Allows Exporter To Approach GST Authorities For Interest On Refund
Case Title : Recyclib Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6519/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 788
The Delhi High Court has permitted an exporter to approach the GST authorities for payment of interest on an allegedly delayed refund under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a petition filed by a lithium-ion battery recycler, which is engaged in the export of unwrought cobalt powder used in scrap batteries. Petitioner submitted that it had applied on January 22, 2022, for refund of ₹31.44 lakh towards tax paid on export of goods. The refund application was rejected on April 22, 2024. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the Petitioner's appeal on January 6, 2026 and set aside the refund rejection order. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a fresh application on March 27, 2026, pursuant to which the refund amount was released.
Plea In Delhi High Court Challenges GST Demand Notices Based On Uncorrected Return
Case Title : Smec International Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Ct Gst, Delhi East & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6176/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 789
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging GST demand notices allegedly issued on the basis of an uncorrected return, despite the petitioner's claim that revised returns had been considered during audit proceedings. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by an engineering design consultant company. Senior Advocate Puneet Agrawal for the Petitioner-company submitted that while filing its GST return for the financial year 2014–15, a clerical error had occurred, which could not be rectified within the prescribed 90-day period. It was submitted that the Petitioner subsequently sought correction of the error, and during audit proceedings, the revised returns were taken into consideration.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Cancellation Notice Lacking Proper Officer Details Office Address
Case Title : Prashant Shanker v. Superintendent, Range-125, CGST Delhi West
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 794
The Delhi High Court on 5 August held that a show cause notice issued for cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration must clearly mention the office address and the details of the proper officer before whom the taxpayer is required to appear. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside the cancellation of Prashant Shanker's GST registration and the rejection of his application seeking revocation, holding that the orders were passed without granting him an effective opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Goel Metal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10996/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 793
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the provisional release of goods seized during search proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that a petitioner questioning the validity of a statutory provision must establish that it infringes a constitutional mandate. Petitioner had contended that the expression "on a provisional basis" in Section 67(6) should not apply where the taxpayer has already discharged the tax, interest, and penalty under Section 74A(9). It also challenged Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and sought quashing of a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalty proceedings.
Interest On Duty Drawback Payable From LEO Date Not Adjudication Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi v. M/s Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 79/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 795
The Delhi High Court on 3 August held that interest on delayed duty drawback becomes payable one month after issuance of the Let Export Order (LEO), and the pendency of adjudication proceedings cannot postpone the statutory liability under Section 75A of the Customs Act (which provides for payment of interest on delayed drawback). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., holding that the exporter was entitled to interest on the duty drawback amount of Rs. 49.75 lakh from 13 April 2003 until the date of actual payment.
Case Title : Holitech India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8397/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 797
The Delhi High Court on 4 August held that the period during which the Interim Board for Settlement remained unable to function due to lack of quorum must be excluded while calculating the statutory limitation period for deciding customs settlement applications. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain set aside the communications issued by the Interim Board treating the Petitioner's settlement proceedings as having abated under Section 127C(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that a litigant cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy of settlement due to the adjudicatory authority's institutional incapacity.
Case Title : Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3874/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 798
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand on the ground that it was based on inadmissible third-party electronic evidence, holding that questions relating to the admissibility, authenticity, and evidentiary value of electronic records are matters to be examined by the statutory appellate authority and not in writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming demands exceeding ₹1.5 crore along with interest and penalty.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Says How GST Proceedings Are to Be Initiated Can't Be Decided in Writ Petition
Case Title : Gias Uddin Ahmed & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/2540/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 25
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to decide whether GST proceedings should be initiated under the normal recovery provisions or the fraud-related provisions of the CGST Act, as that issue requires factual adjudication by the proper officer. Single Judge Justice Devashis Baruah observed that whether a taxpayer committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax can only be determined after examining the facts and, therefore, cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Gujarat HC
Retrospective Property Tax Demands Invalid Under GPMC Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : First Appeal Nos. 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759 and 761 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 107
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) could not retrospectively revise the rateable value of a property and demand property tax years after the relevant assessment period had ended, ruling that such demands were contrary to the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the Taxation Rules framed under it. "Having regard to the statutory provisions and rules thereunder, demand of taxes on the basis of revised rateable value with retrospective effect is invalid and no tax could be taxed to be levied or imposed. Thus, the appellant Corporation having no any jurisdiction and/or authority to raise a demand for a period from 2007-2008 to 2015-2016, in the year 2016," the court observed.
Case Title : State of Gujarat v. Western Agri Seeds Ltd.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1889 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 108
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the State's plea against Western Agri Seeds Ltd., ruling that the state failed to prove the company's seeds were not used for sowing and were therefore outside the scope of the Value Added Tax exemption notification. "The petitioner Department has miserably failed to prove before us that the seeds which are procured by the respondents are not used for sowing purposes," the court observed while upholding the Gujarat VAT tribunal's decision to quash revisional proceedings that had revived a tax demand of ₹1.72 crore.
Kerala HC
Refund Of Service Tax Cannot Be Decided Before Determining Nature Of Contract: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO.19432 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 153
The Kerala High Court on 27 July held that the question of refund or adjustment of Service Tax cannot be decided before the Assessing Authority determines whether the underlying contract is a works contract or a service contract, as the nature of the contract determines the applicable tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji partly allowed the appeals filed by Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited (formerly Pest Control India Private Limited) and set aside the Single Judge's finding that the Service Tax already paid could neither be adjusted nor refunded.
Madhya Pradesh HC
No Excise Duty On Liquor Destroyed In Accidental Fire Without Negligence: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. M/s Som Distillery Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 8893 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 58
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 August held that excise duty cannot be levied on foreign liquor destroyed in an accidental fire where the loss occurred due to an unavoidable cause and there is no evidence of negligence or deliberate wrongdoing by the licensee. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke dismissed the State's writ petition and upheld the Board of Revenue's order setting aside the Rs. 38.41 lakh excise duty demand, finding that the factual conclusions were supported by the evidence on record and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Madras HC
Works Contractors Liable To Pay Purchase Tax On Unregistered Dealer Purchases: Madras High Court
Case Title : The State of Tamil Nadu v. I.Vetrivel
Case Number : TCR(MD).Nos.23 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 214
The Madras High Court on 9 July held that works contractors are liable to pay purchase tax on materials purchased from unregistered dealers, even when such materials are used in the execution of works contracts involving deemed sales. A Division Bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan allowed the revision petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and restored the assessment orders imposing purchase tax and penalty on I. Vetrivel.
Financial Crisis Reasonable Cause To Waive Service Tax Penalty: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3329 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 218
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed where a taxpayer proves a genuine financial crisis as a reasonable cause for delayed payment of service tax, ruling that a Tribunal's finding of financial incapacity based on material on record cannot be interfered with in appeal. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed two appeals filed by the GST and Central Excise Department against the CESTAT order that waived penalties imposed on Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd. under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 while upholding the service tax demand and interest.
Case Title : Ashok Leyland Limited v. Principal Commissioner and Ex-officio Addl. Secretary to Government of India
Case Number : WP Nos. 28619 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 219
The Madras High Court on 30 July held that Customs authorities cannot deny exporters the benefit of a beneficial drawback circular through later clarifications unless the original circular granting the concession has been withdrawn, quashing orders rejecting 7% brand rate drawback claims on the bus body portion of exported passenger buses. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petitions filed by Ashok Leyland Limited and set aside the revisional orders dated 8 March 2022 and the CBEC communications denying the drawback benefit, holding that the authorities could not impose fresh conditions through subsequent clarifications that diluted the benefit granted under the earlier circular.
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.14460 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 221
On 5 August, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the GST Department cannot retain files and documents seized during an inspection once it withdraws the search authorisation under which the seizure was made, and directed the immediate return of all records taken from a jewellery dealer. A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed the writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises and noted that the Department lost its statutory authority to retain the seized material after withdrawing the authorisation issued for the inspection conducted on 25 January 2024.
Six Month Limitation For Service Tax Refund Starts From SIPCOT Certificate Date: Madras High Court
Case Title : Shen Long Bio-Tech (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1711 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 223
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that the six-month limitation period for claiming service tax refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 must be calculated from the date on which the taxpayer receives the mandatory certificate from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), and not from the date on which the Finance Act received Presidential assent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred and directed the department to consider the claim on merits.
Madras High Court Expands GST Search Safeguards, Requires DIN Compliance And Voluntary Payments
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Principle Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.9040 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 222
On 5 August, the Madras High Court laid down additional safeguards governing GST searches, including requirements relating to search authorisation, Document Identification Numbers (DIN) and voluntary payments under the GST law. Justice G.R. Swaminathan while allowing a writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, a jewellery dealer, held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) officers cannot recover tax during search proceedings and that any payment made before issuance of a show cause notice must be shown to have been made voluntarily.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Upholds CENVAT Credit On Captive Power Plant Despite Surplus Power Supply
Case Title : Commissioner of Central GST and Excise v. M/s Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 19
The Patna High Court on 24 July dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeal against Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order allowing the company to claim CENVAT credit on capital goods, input services and iron and steel items used in its manufacturing operations. A Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh held that the benefit cannot be denied merely because part of the electricity generated in the company's captive power plant was supplied to the Bihar State Electricity Board.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes ₹59.77 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Initiated Beyond Limitation
Case Title : Sandeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number : CWP-16774-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 41
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15 July held that proceedings for recovery of deficient stamp duty cannot be initiated after the expiry of the statutory limitation period, and that stamp duty liability must be determined based on the market value and nature of the property as they existed on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari allowed a writ petition filed by Sandeep Singh and another and set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 59.77 lakh towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges, along with 12 per cent annual interest, for a sale deed executed on 5 July 2018.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea In ₹48 Crore GST Evasion Case
Case Title : Hansraj Gurjar v Union of India
Case Number : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8382/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a second bail application filed by a man accused of being the kingpin of an alleged ₹48.41 crore GST evasion syndicate, ruling that bail granted to a co-accused cannot by itself entitle another accused to the same relief. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, "It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while considering the plea of parity, the court is required to independently examine the individual role attributed to the accused, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and all other relevant circumstances."
Tripura HC
ITC Cannot Be Denied For Bona Fide GSTIN Reporting Mistake: Tripura High Court
Case Title : M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. The Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.379 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 5
The Tripura High Court on 27 July held that a taxpayer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to a genuine mistake in reporting invoices under the wrong Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), when the error does not result in any loss of revenue to the Government. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition filed by Ashutosh Bandyopadhay and directed the GST authorities to permit rectification of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period from 1 May 2019 to 5 February 2020, either through the online portal or through manual means, within four weeks.
CESTAT
Labour Contractor Liable For Service Tax Despite Production-Based Payments: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Padam Charan Guman Singh v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51071 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 480
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that a labour contractor providing workers to a steel company was liable to pay service tax as the agreement was a manpower supply contract and not a job work arrangement for manufacturing. A Bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Padam Charan Guman Singh and upheld the demand of service tax, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (penalty for suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax).
Case Title : Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 75999, 76001-76007 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 482
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹8.97 crore against Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (GEECL), ruling that compressing natural gas solely to facilitate transportation does not amount to the manufacture of compressed natural gas (CNG). Relying on its earlier ruling in GEECL's own case and its decision in Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Ltd., the tribunal observed, "The above two case laws make it clear that the activity of compression taken up by the appellant for transportation does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the CEA 1944."
Cut Umbrella Panels Treated As Made-Up Textile Articles, Not Woven Fabric For Tax: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Citizen Umbrella Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75192 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 481
The Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 August held that umbrella panel fabric cut into predetermined triangular shapes and sizes is classifiable as a “made-up textile article” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6307 and not as woven fabric of synthetic filament yarn under CTH 5407. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the demand of differential customs duty, interest and penalty, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act (which allows recovery of duty for an extended period in cases of suppression or misdeclaration) could not be invoked as the importer had disclosed the description and classification of the goods in the Bills of Entry.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Reclassification Of Poultry Cage Components As Iron and Steel Structures
Case Title : Sri Selvi Weld Mesh v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40488 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 483
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the reclassification of weld mesh components used in poultry battery cages. It held that the Revenue failed to explain how products admittedly manufactured exclusively for use in poultry battery cages could be treated as iron and steel structures under the Central Excise Tariff. "The Revenue has not made any attempt in placing on record conceivable and convincing reasons as to how the goods under dispute could become structures or parts etc. under CETH 7308. Viewed thus, we are also of the opinion that the Department has seriously erred in rejecting the declared classification without proper justification and hence, the impugned order calls for interference," the bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed.
Case Title : Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jammu & Kashmir
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 484
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that consumer goods maker Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid raw materials purchased from certain tax-exempt manufacturers. It held that the benefit could not be denied simply because the law was amended later to expressly allow it. "We find that before the amendment there was no express prohibition in the CENVAT Credit Rules so as to deny such credit availed by the appellant. Since the appellant has satisfied the conditions of the CCR, credit cannot be denied for the reason that express provision for the same came at a later date," the tribunal observed.
COVID Limitation Extension Can't Revive Time-Barred Service Tax Demands: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : S.K. Logitech Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75626 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 498
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that the COVID-19-related extension of limitation cannot revive tax demands that had already become time-barred under the statute. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "The subsequent exclusion of limitation during the pandemic cannot revive a cause of action or breathe life into a demand which had already become time-barred under the statute. The law relating to exclusion of limitation was intended to preserve subsisting rights; it was never intended to resurrect proceedings which had already become barred by efflux of time."
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside ₹2.39 Crore Service Tax Demand Against SBI Card
Case Title : SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54203 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 486
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside a ₹2.39 crore service tax demand against SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd., holding that a show cause notice (SCN) that fails to identify the taxable service, the service recipient or the consideration cannot sustain such a demand. The tribunal observed, "We find that the SCN does not specify as to what was the service rendered by the appellants and to whom and what was the consideration thereon."
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax on Packaged Software Sale, Rules It Is Goods, Not Service
Case Title : Horizon Technologies v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86345 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 485
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that packaged (canned) software is "goods". It therefore ruled that its sale cannot be treated as a taxable service merely because the conditions for claiming the available service tax exemption were not met. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that once packaged software is recognised as "goods" under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, its sale falls outside the definition of "service" under the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Findoc Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (along with connected appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60581 of 2023, 60580 of 2023 and 60272 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 487
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has set aside a ₹4.95 crore customs duty demand against Findoc Impex, holding that unauthenticated documents allegedly obtained from the UAE Customs authorities could not, by themselves, establish that dry dates imported into India were of Pakistani origin. Emphasising that the burden rested on the Revenue to prove its allegations, the tribunal observed, "It is not for the appellant to disprove the allegations of the department. It is for the revenue to prove all the allegations with reasonable proof."
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.77 Crore Penalty Against Maruti Suzuki In Customs Classification Dispute
Case Title : Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 54695 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 488
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a ₹3.77 crore penalty imposed on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. over the classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs). It held that customs authorities had accepted the company's classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs) since 2015. The tribunal, however, ruled that the products are classifiable as components of electrical ignition or engine-starting equipment used in diesel engines. Explaining why, the tribunal observed, "The HSN Explanatory Notes to 85.11 extend this heading to electronic control units that regulate ignition/glow-plug operation based on sensor inputs, which is precisely the GPCU's function."
Conversion Of Bare Structures Into Retail Showrooms Is Taxable As “Original Works”: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : West Wind Concepts Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50759 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 489
On 6 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that converting bare commercial structures into fully functional retail showrooms constitutes “original works” under the service tax law and not merely completion and finishing services, while also ruling that service tax cannot be levied on forfeited customer advances or insurance compensation received for goods destroyed in a fire. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 2.61 crore raised against West Wind Concepts Private Limited, along with the interest and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds No Service Tax On Pre-2016 Mining Rights, Sets Aside ₹89.13 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Roy Engineers v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 490
On 4 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on royalty paid for mining rights where the right to extract minerals was granted before 1 April 2016, even if the royalty was paid after that date. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 89.13 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against Roy Engineers, a Bihar-based mining company. It held: “...where the mining lease/assignment of the right to use natural resources was prior to 01.04.2016, Service tax cannot be fastened even if the consideration is paid thereafter...”
Case Title : M/s Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30308 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 491
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that services provided to schools for conducting examinations, including Olympiads and talent search examinations, are exempt from Service Tax as they relate to the conduct of examinations by educational institutions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi set aside the Service Tax demand of Rs. 1.94 crore, along with interest and penalties, raised against Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. for the period April 2014 to June 2017.
Recovery Of LC Charges By Non-Banking Entity Not Taxable As Banking Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50241 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 492
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the issuance of a Letter of Credit (LC) by a person or body corporate not engaged in banking, financial, or similar activities is not covered under the taxable category of "Banking and Other Financial Services." It ruled that the recovery of LC charges by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) from buyers in High Seas Sale (HSS) transactions is therefore not liable to service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, "In other words, since the issue of LC by a person or body corporate, not engaged in banking, financial or similar activities is not covered in the list of services of clause (ix), the recovery of LC charges by the appellant from their HSS buyers is not liable to service tax."
LED Modules Imported For Street Lights Attract 10% Customs Duty, Not 20% As Lamp Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC Import Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51772 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 493
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that LED modules imported for manufacturing street lights cannot be classified as parts of lamps and lighting fittings merely because they are intended for use in street lights. A coram comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya observed that while street lights are covered under the category for lamps and lighting fittings, “the usage/utility of the imported goods is not relevant for deciding classification.”
Registration In Exporting Country Before Import Does Not Make Vehicle Used: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Raju Thomas & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40761 & 40762 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 495
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that a vehicle does not lose its eligibility for concessional customs duty available for new vehicles merely because it was temporarily registered in the country of export, so long as there is no evidence that it was actually used before being exported to India. The revenue must establish that the vehicle was actually used before it was exported to India. “Mere registration of a motor vehicle in the exporting country does not, by itself, establish that the vehicle had been put to use. The decisive test is whether the vehicle had actually been used prior to export,” the tribunal ruled.
Case Title : Givuadan (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2961 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 494
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has held that a customs duty exemption claimed on imported flavour compounds cannot be denied without establishing that the goods fall within the exclusion for compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages. The revenue must prove that the goods satisfy the exclusion. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi refering to a 2002 notification observed, “what is excluded only those goods that are 'compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages, of an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5 per cent. volume, determined at 20 degrees centigrade' and unless the Revenue proves the above the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied.”
Penalties For Service Tax Default, Suppression Cannot Be Imposed Together: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Faridabad Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 727 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 496
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has held that penalties for failure to pay service tax and for suppressing facts with an intent to evade tax cannot be imposed at the same time. The tribunal set aside the penalty for failure to pay service tax, holding that it could not be imposed alongside the penalty for suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax because the two were mutually exclusive. “As regards the penalty under Section 76, we hold that once the penalty under Section 78 is imposed and penalty under Section 76 cannot imposed because both the penalties are mutually exclusive,” the tribunal observed.
GSTAT
Recovery Of Inadmissible Pre GST CENVAT Credit Must Proceed Under Earlier Tax Laws: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Tata Unistore Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case Number : Appeal No. APL/8/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (THA) 27
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has recently clarified that GST authorities cannot use Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act to question tax credits that businesses earned before GST came into force and later carried forward into the GST system. Referring to Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, the tribunal observed, "From the above-cited provisions it is clear that recovery proceedings related to inadmissible credit under erstwhile laws can be initiated only under the provisions of the erstwhile laws, even after enactment of the CGST Act."
10% Pre-Deposit For Penalty-Only GST Appeals Cannot Apply Retrospectively: GSTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal-I Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/623/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(HYD) 28
The Hyderabad Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 July held that the 10% pre-deposit requirement introduced for penalty-only appeals under the proviso to Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied retrospectively. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sushil Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas allowed the appeal filed by Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and held that the amended provision would not apply where the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were issued before 1 October 2025.