SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Holds BPCL, HPCL Liable For ₹16.6 Crore Service Tax For Marketing MGL's CNG
Case Title : Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 2471–2473 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 243
The Supreme Court on Monday held that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) are liable to pay more than ₹16.6 crore in service tax for facilitating the sale of Mahanagar Gas Ltd.'s (MGL) compressed natural gas (CNG). It ruled that the two public sector oil companies rendered Business Auxiliary Service to MGL by promoting and marketing its CNG, instead of purchasing and reselling the fuel. "The agent Corporations provide promotional services for marketing and sale of goods belonging to the MGL. Their activity stands squarely covered under Section 65(19) as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. MGL is the customer of services provided by the respondent Corporations and facilitated by such services, MGL sells the goods-CNG as marketed and promoted by the respondent Corporations to the vehicle owners as per the arrangement in the Agreements," the court held.
HIGH COURTS
Calcutta HC
Case Title : M/s B. Enterprise & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 1078 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 181
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice due to improper service of notices on the GST portal. It observed that the show cause notice, reminder, and adjudication order were uploaded only in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal and not in the "Normal" tab. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that such uploading does not amount to valid communication under the GST law.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Refuses To Examine GST Liability On Diagnostic Services, Directs Petitioner To AAR
Case Title : Hemogenomics Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1973/2026 and W.P.(C) 4302/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 720
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to examine a challenge to the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on diagnostic services rendered by a private lab, observing that the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) under the GST Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan disposed of two writ petitions filed by a company after being informed that the vacancy in the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling had been filled, thereby restoring the quorum required for adjudication.
Gauhati HC
GST Seller's Failure To File Returns Cannot Deny ITC To Bona Fide Purchaser: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/4312/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 22
The Gauhati High Court on 16 July held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to file GST returns after collecting tax from the purchaser, and that the department must proceed against the defaulting seller. Justice Devashis Baruah allowed a writ petition by Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments challenging the rejection of ITC on generators bought in FY 2017-18, holding that treating the claim as excess ITC went against the Division Bench ruling in National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Jindal Saw Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 735 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)91
The Gujarat High Court on 15 July quashed a Rs. 41.53 crore central excise recovery notice issued to Jindal Saw Ltd., holding that the Commissioner of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to question eligibility certificates issued by the High Powered Committee under the exemption notification. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining such certificates could only be examined by the statutory committee that had issued them and set aside the show cause notice dated 17 September 2008.
Case Title : Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 4373 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)92
The Gujarat High Court on 2 July held that GST authorities cannot deny interest on refunds by treating a refund application filed pursuant to a Court order as a fresh application, ruling that where the original rejection of a refund claim is set aside as illegal, interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act (which provides for interest on delayed refunds) must be calculated from the date of the original refund application. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a batch of writ petitions led by Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. and set aside orders denying interest on GST refunds. It observed: “The respondent authority was required to consider the date of initial refund application filed by the petitioner for calculating the interest instead of the subsequent application, which was filed after the order passed by this Court.”
Case Title : LANXESS Belgium N.V. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8794 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)95
The Gujarat High Court on 7 July held that disputes concerning the methodology used by the Designated Authority to determine dumping and injury margins in anti-dumping proceedings must be raised before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Belgian exporter LANXESS Belgium N.V. challenging the Designated Authority's final findings dated 20 March 2026 and the consequential notification imposing anti-dumping duty.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Rule Requiring Agricultural Science Degree For Agricultural Land Valuers
Case Title : Ketan Natvarlal Brahmbhatt v. Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 2167 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)98
The Gujarat High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of the requirement that applicants seeking registration as valuers of agricultural land must possess a degree in Agricultural Science. It held that the qualification bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved under Rule 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, and does not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
Case Title : Messers Shankar Packagings Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 17635 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)99
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a CESTAT order remanding a customs classification dispute, questioning how the tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine CBEC circulars despite an earlier Gujarat High Court judgment requiring the Union of India to undertake that exercise. "We fail to understand how the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, adopted the very same directions and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-look into the said Circulars, despite the fact that this Court had directed the Union of India itself to undertake such an exercise," a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Dhariwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 3157 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 127
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025, which imposed a machine-based cess on pan masala manufacturers, holding that while Parliament could impose such a levy, the manner in which it was levied violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the law levied the cess on the assumption of the quantity manufactured based on the capacity of pouch-packing machines instead of the quantity actually manufactured, which is unconstitutional.
GST Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation For Compulsory Land Acquisition: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Smt. P.S. Shamala v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 12641 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 129
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land, holding that such acquisition is not a "supply of goods or services" under the GST law. "An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is construed as goods. Therefore, there is neither supply of goods nor services, but an expropriation of the property of a citizen using statutory power. The petitioner has neither sold any goods nor provided any service in giving away his property. Therefore, even if a wide latitude is given to the words "supply of goods or service", the acquisition of property by the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain, cannot fall within the definition of the words "supply of goods or service". Justice R. Nataraj held.
Kerala HC
Right To Cross-Examination Cannot Be Denied Over Unretracted GST Statements: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 19986 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 139
The Kerala High Court on 8 July held that GST authorities cannot reject a taxpayer's request to cross-examine witnesses merely because the witnesses have not retracted their earlier statements, observing that cross-examination is necessary to test the truthfulness of evidence relied upon during adjudication. Justice A.A. Ziyad Rahman passed the order while allowing the writ petition filed by Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP against a GST adjudication order passed following an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
Kerala High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Demand On Bank For ATM Installation In 2016
Case Title : The Branch Manager v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 141
The Kerala High Court has quashed a demand issued by a Sub-Registrar directing a bank to pay ₹37,500 as deficit stamp duty for installation of an ATM under a registered lease deed. It held that the authority lacked statutory power to recover the alleged deficit in 2016. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed that the power to recover deficient stamp duty after registration was introduced only by the Kerala Finance Act, 2019. Therefore, the provision could not be applied to proceedings initiated in 2016.
Madras HC
Case Title : SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WP No.23463 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 190
The Madras High Court has directed the GST authorities to adjust tax already paid under the wrong tax head instead of requiring the taxpayer to make a fresh payment before claiming a refund. It held that a taxpayer who has discharged the entire tax liability within time cannot be penalised merely because the amount was inadvertently deposited under the wrong GST head. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the writ petition filed by SYA Homes and set aside the rectification order to the extent it required the petitioner to first pay CGST and SGST dues before seeking a refund of the amount paid under IGST.
Case Title : Sayar Jewellers v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C.No.40 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 189
The Madras High Court has upheld Income tax additions and penalty against a dealer, holding that a revised return filed after an Income Tax inspection cannot protect a taxpayer from the consequences of suppressed turnover. It observed that a revised return filed after detection does not automatically establish bona fide conduct or protect a taxpayer from penalty. "The revised return filed subsequent to Income Tax inspection cannot be a protection blanket for the tax evaders. Even if the Trader pays the tax due based on its revised return, he has to necessarily show that the omission to disclose the true and correct accounts was not willful or intentional. Payment of tax subsequent to the inspection of the petitioner's premises may be taken as a reason for mitigating circumstance to levy less than equal addition, instead of equal addition", the court ruled.
Madras High Court Directs Chennai Corporation To Reimburse Contractor's GST Burden After VAT Change
Case Title : M/s Sakthi Constructions v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos.15786, 15936 and 15940 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 191
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that government contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional GST paid due to the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime if the change in tax law occurred after the award of contracts. A Bench of Justice C. Saravanan directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to reimburse the GST burden incurred by Sakthi Constructions for the remaining works under government contracts that were awarded before the introduction of GST on 1 July 2017.
Madras High Court Directs SVLDRS Relief To SB Aditya Power Projects In CENVAT Credit Dispute
Case Title : M/s. SB Aditya Power Projects Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : WP.No.3060 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 194
The Madras High Court on 25 June held that authorities cannot reject a CENVAT credit claim on a ground that was not raised in the original show cause notice, and set aside the order denying credit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS). Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the petition filed by SB Aditya Power Projects and directed the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration and issue the discharge certificate after taking into account the Court's findings.
Case Title : Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(MD)16757/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 196
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot deny a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure merely because the principal input and the finished product attract the same rate of tax, if other inputs used in manufacturing are taxed at higher rates, leading to accumulation of ITC. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed two writ petitions filed by Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited, quashed the refund rejection orders, and directed the GST Department to process and sanction refunds of Rs. 10.88 lakh and Rs. 15.50 lakh, along with applicable interest, within three months after granting the company a personal hearing.
GST Law Does Not Mandate Three-Month Gap Between Notice And Adjudication Order: Madras High Court
Case Title : Raj Machine Tools v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tiruvallur Assessment Circle
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 25946 & 25947 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 197
The Madras High Court on 17 July held that GST law does not require a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a show cause notice and passing of an adjudication order, clarifying that the three-month requirement only applies to the period between issuance of the notice and expiry of the statutory limitation period for passing the order. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy partly allowed writ petitions filed by Raj Machine Tools challenging two GST assessment orders for the financial year 2021-22, holding that the provision does not prescribe any fixed interval between the show cause notice and the adjudication order.
Madras High Court Quashes ₹12.58 Cr Demand Against Pellagic Food, Upholds Advance Ruling Principles
Case Title : M/s. Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 39 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 199
The Madras High Court on 9 July quashed the Customs order passed against Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. that raised a demand of Rs. 12.58 crore as differential customs duty, along with interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that Customs authorities should ordinarily follow the legal principles laid down in an Advance Ruling in similar cases, even though such rulings bind only the applicant who obtained them, unless facts or law change.
Patna HC
Case Title : M/s Munna Chaudhary v. The Union of India
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4593 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 17
The Patna High Court on 17 July held that GST authorities cannot cancel GST registration or reject a revocation application without complying with the statutory safeguards mandated under law, ruling that orders passed mechanically in violation of the principles of natural justice are unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed the writ petition filed by Munna Chaudhary, set aside the GST registration cancellation order, the order rejecting the revocation application, and the appellate orders, directed immediate restoration of the GST registration, and ordered the department to pay Rs. 15,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title : Umagaurav Private Limited v. The State of Bihar
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4914 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 18
The Patna High Court, in the facts of the case, has held that a taxpayer who voluntarily furnishes an undertaking to obtain relief from GST authorities cannot subsequently challenge its validity after accepting the benefits flowing from it. It dismissed the writ petition filed by Umagaurav Private Limited and imposed costs of ₹25,000. A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish held that the petitioner, having secured the removal of restrictions on its bank account and permitted one of the post-dated cheques to be encashed pursuant to the undertaking, could not later contend that the undertaking was invalid or obtained under duress.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : M/s. SRO India v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : CWP-11494-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 35
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently quashed a GST show cause notice after holding that it had been issued primarily by relying upon an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, the use of which was not shown to have statutory sanction. The challenge was founded on a document annexed to the show cause notice and uploaded on the department's portal. The document referred to various AI-based aids and included suggestions to "Tighten this further with case-law citation paragraph-wise", convert it into "Order-in-Original reasoning" and "make it lethal".
Case Title : Luxmi Traders Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (Lead Case)
Case Number : CWP No. 27139 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 38
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order on the GST common portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. It ruled that www.gst.gov.in has not been notified as the common portal for serving notices or orders under Section 146 of the Act. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed, "We have no hesitation in accepting petitioner's submission that the Common Portal, i.e. www.gst.gov.in, is not a portal for the service of notices or orders and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the uploading of SCN or orders on the Common Portal would amount to service of such SCN or order upon the petitioner in terms of Section 169 of the Act of 2017."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Ludhiana Trader Accused Of ₹9.66 Crore Fake GST ITC Fraud
Case Title : Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab through State Tax Officer
Case Number : CRM-M-19525-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 37
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Ludhiana-based businessman accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) of nearly ₹9.66 crore under the GST regime. It observed that continued incarceration was not justified when the prosecution case was based primarily on documentary evidence. Justice Surya Partap Singh, while deciding the bail plea of Rohit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Maa Steel, Ludhiana, noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than three-and-a-half months. It also observed that the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : Premier Bars Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 630/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 29
The Rajasthan High Court has held that taxpayers whose goods were confiscated under the Central Excise law and who were directed to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation are not excluded from the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. It ruled that they cannot be treated as ineligible to file declarations under the Scheme merely because they were liable to pay a redemption fine. A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Premier Bars Private Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement steel and registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITTA.Nos.30, 31 and 32 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 53
The Telangana High Court on 19 June held that tax authorities cannot deny a taxpayer the benefit of a sales tax deferment scheme merely because statutory adjustment orders supporting the claim were not available during the original assessment proceedings, and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining the subsequent orders. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao partly allowed the appeals filed by Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Limited and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the Form VAT-205 adjustment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and decide the company's entitlement to the benefit under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act (which allows deduction for certain statutory liabilities subject to prescribed conditions).
CESTAT
Restaurants Need Not Reverse CENVAT Credit For Food Supplied As Part Of Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Speciality Restaurants Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85273 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 448
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 July held that restaurants providing taxable restaurant services are not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 merely because food or beverages are supplied as part of the service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Speciality Restaurants Ltd. and set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit.
Procedural Lapse Cannot Defeat Excise Exemption Benefit When Notification Is Silent: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Power Tools and Accessories v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75489 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 449
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that the Department cannot deny an excise exemption merely because a manufacturer did not intimate the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities before clearing goods without payment of duty when the exemption notification does not impose such a requirement. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Power Tools and Accessories and set aside the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 6.72 lakh, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Chennai Reiterates NIDB Data Alone Cannot Justify Rejection Of Declared Import Value
Case Title : Wellman Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40088 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 450
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the National Import Database (NIDB) data alone cannot justify rejection of the declared transaction value of imported goods or enhancement of their assessable value. It held that the Customs Department must produce independent evidence of undervaluation and establish the comparability of contemporaneous imports before discarding the declared value.
Case Title : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76097 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 451
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the interest demand raised against Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. on customs duty paid while clearing imported capital goods from its bonded warehouse. The tribunal held that interest could not be demanded merely because the goods were cleared for home consumption without being put to use, where they had been imported with the intention of being used in manufacturing.
Case Title : Anil Lingappa Palle, Proprietor of Khushi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 450
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an appellate order that had sustained a ₹1.52 lakh service tax demand after finding that the Department failed to establish that the show cause notice had been served on the assessee before adjudication proceedings were initiated. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Anil Lingappa Palle, proprietor of Khushi Enterprises, against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, which had partly modified the Order-in-Original by reducing the demand to ₹1.52 lakh while sustaining interest and an equal penalty.
Reimbursement Of Stipend Paid To Apprentices Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. India Nippon Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41519 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 452
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of 50% of the stipend paid to apprentices by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT) is not liable to service tax. It held that the reimbursement is akin to a statutory welfare grant rather than consideration for any taxable service. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal filed by India Nippon Electricals Ltd. against the service tax demand for April 2012 to December 2014.
Case Title : Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Skin Care Unit) v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41001 & 41002 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 453
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd.'s refund claims arising from the finalisation of provisional assessments. It found that the company had established, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate, that the excess excise duty had not been passed on to customers. The tribunal held that the refund claims were therefore not barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar held that the authorities ignored a material document forming part of the record while rejecting the refund claims.
Cisco India's Support Services To Overseas Affiliates Are Export, Not Intermediary: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20743 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 455
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that marketing support, technical support, manufacturing support, management support and other business support services provided by Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entities qualify as export of services and cannot be treated as intermediary services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. A Bench of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the company's appeals against orders confirming service tax demands, interest and penalties on the ground that it had allegedly acted as an intermediary while providing services to its foreign affiliates.
Case Title : Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 59641 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 458
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the inclusion of the value of software licences downloaded from the internet in the assessable value of imported hardware locks (dongles). It held that the downloaded software formed an integral part of the imported product and that its value formed part of the transaction value. A coram of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : TV Today Network Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.51678 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 456
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 July held that a one-day delay in filing a revised ST-3 return under Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be condoned as a procedural lapse for claiming refund of transitional CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the order rejecting the refund claim of TV Today Network Limited for Rs. 2.13 crore, holding that the company had failed to establish the admissibility of the CENVAT credit by producing the necessary supporting documents and invoices.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Service Tax Demand On Railway Cleaning and Housekeeping Services
Case Title : Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 79275 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 459
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the service tax demand raised against Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society after holding that the services provided by it to the Indian Railways were either not taxable, exempt from service tax, or part of the demand was barred by limitation. The tribunal also rejected the Department's allegation that the society had collected and retained service tax from the Railways, finding no evidence to support the claim. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the society's appeal, set aside the impugned order, and, consequently, the demand for interest and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Allows CENVAT Credit To Citibank For Cleaning And Event Services After 2011 Amendment
Case Title : M/s Citibank N.A. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42522 to 42527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 460
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 July held that Citibank N.A. is entitled to CENVAT credit on cleaning services, general insurance services, convention services, event management services and mandap keeper services. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the bank's appeals, while holding that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on club or association services, health and fitness services, outdoor catering, rent-a-cab, tour operator and certain insurance auxiliary services after the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1 April 2011.
Case Title : Asian Paints Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85041 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)461
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Asian Paints Ltd., holding that service tax could not be levied on lease rentals collected from dealers for tinting machines after finding that the arrangement amounted to a deemed sale. The tribunal held, "I have no hesitation in holding that the transaction in the case before us is of 'deemed sale' as per Article 366 (29A)(d) of the Constitution of India." The order was passed by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban.
Case Title : Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Apepal No. 86279/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 462
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Imagine Marketing Ltd., the company behind the boAt brand, in a dispute over the tariff classification of imported wireless Bluetooth earphones. The tribunal found that the dispute was purely interpretational and that the Department had failed to establish collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. "There is no element of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts inasmuch as the issue in hand entirely involves interpretation of the Customs Tariff," the tribunal held.
Case Title : The Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30285 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 463
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that manufacturers are not required to reverse Cenvat credit on Sulphuric Acid supplied to fertilizer manufacturers without payment of excise duty under a conditional government notification. The tribunal held that such supplies cannot automatically be treated as "exempted goods" merely because no duty was paid on them. The tribunal observed that the product remained dutiable. It said the exemption was available only for specified supplies made after complying with the prescribed statutory procedure.
CESTAT Mumbai Slams Customs For Missing Records, Calls It Contrary To 'Viksit Bharat @2047' Vision
Case Title : John Miranda v. Commissioner of Customs, Import-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87108 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 464
On 21 July, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) criticised the Customs Department for rejecting a refund claim merely because it was unable to trace its own records, observing that such administrative failure is inconsistent with the vision of “Viksit Bharat @2047”. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member M.M. Parthiban made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by John Miranda and directing the Customs Department to refund Rs. 3 lakh deposited during investigation after finding that the amount was never appropriated and the underlying duty demand had subsequently been set aside.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has constituted a Working Group to examine a proposal for centralised administration of taxpayers holding multiple Goods and Services Tax (GST) registrations under the same Permanent Account Number (PAN). The proposal covers taxpayers whose GST registrations fall under different Central Tax jurisdictions. The move is aimed at promoting ease of doing business and improving administrative efficiency. It seeks to streamline GST administration for taxpayers with multiple GSTINs registered under different Central Tax jurisdictions.