HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Result Of Assessment Proceedings Has Bearing On Criminal Prosecution Under GST: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shakib Qureshi v. Anti Evasion Cgst and 2 others
Case Number : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44278 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 48
The Allahabad High Court on 20 May held that the outcome of assessment proceedings can have a material bearing on criminal prosecution under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan granted bail to Shakib Qureshi and observed that, although criminal prosecution and assessment proceedings are independent, findings in assessment proceedings may affect a criminal case.
Delhi HC
Customs Cannot Deny Clearance For Goods Imported Before DGFT Notification: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Bright Metal Refiners v. Director General, Directorate General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5551/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 596
The Delhi High Court on 4 June held that import restrictions introduced through a DGFT notification cannot apply to goods imported before the notification acquired legal force upon publication in the e-Official Gazette. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul allowed a writ petition filed by Bright Metal Refiners and directed customs authorities to process and release consignments of platinum alloy jewellery imported from Thailand.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : MD. Nekib Hussain v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/2789/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 15
The Gauhati High Court on 1 June held that a taxpayer whose GST registration has been cancelled for non-filing of returns can seek restoration of registration by furnishing pending returns and clearing tax dues, interest, penalty and late fees in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. A Bench of Justice Kardak Ete disposed of the petition filed by Md. Nekib Hussain, proprietor of Nekib Hussain, who challenged the cancellation of his GST registration and sought restoration of the same.
Kerala HC
Kerala HC Holds ISD Optional Before 2024 Amendment; Quashes ₹1.31 Cr. GST Demand Against Intertek
Case Title : M/s. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise
Case Number : WP(C) No. 30075 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 92
On 8 June, the Kerala High Court held that, prior to the Finance Act, 2024 amendment to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, companies were not required to distribute input tax credit (ITC) among distinct units through the Input Service Distributor (ISD) mechanism. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed a writ petition filed by Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. and quashed an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act that demanded over Rs.1.31 crore in GST and penalty on allegations of fraud, suppression of facts, and wilful misstatement.
Kerala High Court Quashes GST Notice Issued For Multiple Assessment Years Through Single Proceeding
Case Title : M/s Malabar Trade Links v. Superintendent
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 18343 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 96
On 1 June, the Kerala High Court held that the GST Department cannot issue a composite show-cause notice covering more than one assessment year, as such a notice is legally unsustainable and cannot form the basis of adjudication. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. quashed the show-cause notice and the consequential Order-in-Original issued against Malabar Trade Links, while granting liberty to the GST Department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Uttarakhand HC
Uttarakhand HC Quashes GST Demand, Says Portal-Only Service Invalid After Registration Cancellation
Case Title : Vandana Distributers v. Commissioner of the State GST & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 401 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT)9
The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that where a taxpayer's GST registration has already been cancelled, service of a Show Cause Notice and adjudication order solely through the GST portal cannot be treated as valid service under the GST law. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that once registration stands cancelled, a taxpayer cannot be expected to continuously monitor the GST portal for notices and orders.
CESTAT
Case Title : Magic Mike Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51365 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 327
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently set aside a customs duty demand of ₹1.14 crore against Magic Mike Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. A Bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the company was entitled to an exemption under a 2005 customs notification for certain printed circuit board assemblies (PCBAs), as the imported goods were not used to manufacture the categories of telecom and networking products excluded from the exemption.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Goods Transport by Road Without Consignment Note Not Taxable GTA Service
Case Title : Best Road Carriers v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Alwar
Case Number :Service Tax Appeal No. 51680 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 330
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 5 June set aside a service tax demand against Best Road Carriers after holding that mere transportation of goods by road, without issuing a consignment note or providing ancillary services, does not amount to a taxable Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held: “Since under GTA it is only such of these services which are in relation to transport of goods by road which are taxable and not the actual transport of goods by road itself. And that appellant has not rendered any service in relation to transport of goods by road like loading / unloading nor even for reimbursing for damage and not issuing the consignment note except mere transport of Goods by road…”
CESTAT New Delhi Allows CENVAT Credit On Ore Crushing Services Used In Manufacturing Process
Case Title : M/s. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Godawari Power & Ispat
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 331
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 5 June 2026 held that services used for crushing mined iron ore and removing unwanted material before the ore reaches the factory qualify as “input services” for CENVAT credit, as they directly connect with the manufacturing process. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. and set aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Department.
CESTAT Mumbai Bars Customs From Rejecting Declared Value, Upholds Relief For Adani Entities
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) v. M/s. Adani Enterprises Limited
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 86116 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 332
On 5 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value of imported goods when they rely on allegations of overvaluation arising from the same Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation and evidence that earlier proceedings had already rejected and the Supreme Court had affirmed. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed six appeals filed by the Customs Department and upheld the order that dropped proceedings against Adani Group entities.
Case Title : Grafica Flextronica Vs Commissioner of GST & CE, Palghar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86211 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 333
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 June held that CENVAT credit on duty-paid goods returned to a factory cannot be denied merely because the re-manufactured machine was supplied to a different customer and not to the buyer who had originally returned the goods. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati allowed the appeal filed by Grafica Flextronica and set aside a demand of Rs. 23.40 lakh along with interest and penalty.
Construction of Educational Institutions Not Taxable Before 1 July 2012: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s. R.R. Thulasi Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.41959 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 334
On 8 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that works contract services used for construction of educational institutions were not liable to service tax during the relevant period prior to 1 July 2012, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the non-levy. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. decided the appeal filed by the Department against R.R. Thulasi Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd.
CESTAT Allows SPI Technologies' ₹2.47 Crore Refund On Export Services Despite CENVAT Reversal
Case Title : SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.40989 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 335
On 8 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of services cannot be denied merely because CENVAT credit was initially availed and later reversed, or due to procedural lapses such as delayed filing of declarations. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., a Software Technology Park of India (STPI) unit engaged in exporting IT-enabled services.
Customs Cannot Reclassify Dolomite as Marble Based on Other Importers' Test Reports: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Sampat Ostwal & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86354 and 86355 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 336
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 June held that customs authorities cannot reclassify imported goods as marble blocks by relying on test reports of consignments imported by other entities when laboratory reports of the importer's own goods classify them as dolomite. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeals filed by Shri Parasnath Exports and its partner Sampat Ostwal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
SIPCOT Water Infrastructure Charges Exempt From Service Tax Under Section 104: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41395 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 337
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the one-time amount collected by the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (SIPCOT) from industrial allottees towards water supply infrastructure is exempt from Service Tax under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed SIPCOT's appeal and set aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Department.
Case Title: GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41944 of 2016
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 348
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a freight forwarder's mark-up or profit on ocean freight charges cannot be subjected to service tax merely because the amount collected from customers exceeds the freight actually paid to shipping lines. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by GAC Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the company.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds CENVAT Credit Does Not Lapse If Other Dutiable Final Products Continue
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Alwar v. M/s Sharp Menthol India Ltd.
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL No. 51552 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 338
On 18 May, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that CENVAT credit lying in balance does not lapse merely because some final products become exempt from excise duty, as long as other final products manufactured from the same inputs continue to attract duty. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed three Departmental appeals and upheld the order dropping demands exceeding Rs.22.88 crore against Sharp Menthol India Ltd., arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of CENVAT credit between March 2008 and September 2010.
CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Continued Suspension Of Nhava Sheva CFS, Notes No Inquiry Was Initiated
Case Title : International Cargo Terminal Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85943 of 2026 Customs Appeal No. 85820 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 339
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has set aside an order continuing the suspension of a Container Freight Station (CFS) operated by International Cargo Terminal Private Limited (ICTPL) at Nhava Sheva. The tribunal held that Customs authorities had not substantiated the grounds for continuing the immediate suspension. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed: "In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 05.05.2026 of the learned Commissioner of Customs for having continued suspension beyond a reasonable period, without having substantiated the grounds for invoking immediate suspension under Regulation 11 ibid."
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Service Tax Demand On Proprietorship, Rejects Liability For Erstwhile Firm
Case Title : Space Associates v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.42364 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 340
On 10 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the Department cannot fasten service tax liability on a proprietorship concern for dues arising from an erstwhile partnership firm without establishing any transfer, amalgamation, or successor liability. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar reiterated that composite works contracts executed prior to 1 June 2007 cannot be subjected to service tax under the then-prevailing legal framework and allowed the appeal filed by Space Associates against interest and penalty confirmed against it for the period April 2006 to June 2007.
Case Title : Precision Equipments Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41459 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 341
On 9 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that authorities cannot invoke the extended period of limitation under service tax law when a dispute arises from a CERA audit objection and the Department itself contests the audit findings, as such circumstances indicate an interpretational issue rather than suppression of facts by Precision Equipments Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Precision Equipments and set aside the service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service for the period from September 2004 to March 2006.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Rejection Of BPL Telecom's VCES Declaration As Notice Was Delayed
Case Title : BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40526 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 342
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the rejection of a Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) declaration filed by BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal found that the notice proposing rejection was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. It also found that the departmental correspondence relied upon by the Revenue was merely general in nature.
CESTAT Mumbai Grants Customs Exemption On Re-Imported Buffalo Meat, Quashes ₹45.82 Crore Demand
Case Title : Allanasons Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87690 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 343
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of ₹45.82 crore, a redemption fine of ₹6 crore and penalties imposed on a Mumbai-based exporter of frozen buffalo meat. The case concerned the re-import of meat that had earlier been exported and was subsequently brought back into India before being processed and re-exported. A Bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that Allanasons Private Limited had established the linkage between the goods originally exported, later re-imported, and subsequently re-exported after processing. The Bench held that the company was entitled to the customs duty exemption claimed on the re-imported goods.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Customs Duty Demand Over Inadmissible Electronic Evidence
Case Title : Suraj Impex v. Commissioner of Customs & Connected Matters
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40037 of 2021 (M/s Suraj Impex) Customs Appeal No. 40038 of 2021 (M/s Spark Lites) Customs Appeal No. 40040 of 2021 (Shri Rajesh Jain)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE)344
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently set aside customs duty demands of over ₹11.24 crore raised against importers of lighting fixtures and allied goods from China. The tribunal found that the Revenue's allegation of undervaluation rested on unverified electronic data and uncorroborated statements. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed appeals filed by Suraj Impex, Spark Lites and Shri Rajesh Jain against an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai.
ONGC Rebutted Unjust Enrichment Presumption, Entitled To ₹4.42 Crore OID Cess Refund: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41097 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 345
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently, in a case involcing ONGC held that the statutory presumption that duty incidence has been passed on stands rebutted where contractual documents, invoices, and independent certifications establish that the burden of duty was not passed on to the buyer. The ruling came while allowing Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.'s (ONGC) refund claim of ₹4.42 crore towards excess Oil Industry Development Cess (OID Cess).
GSTAT
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. ASR Cinema LLP
Case Number : NAPA/23/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 24
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 May held that permission granted by State authorities or the Telangana High Court to collect proposed ticket fares cannot override the statutory obligation under Section 171 of the CGST Act to pass on the benefit of GST rate reduction to consumers through a commensurate reduction in prices. A Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad dismissed the appeal filed by ASR Cinema LLP and affirmed the profiteering findings recorded by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP).
The Committee constituted by the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has recommended that appellants should not be required to file certified copies of orders that are already uploaded on the common GST portal. The proposal forms part of a wider set of suggested changes to the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. The recommendation was among several suggestions considered by the committee after examining representations received from trade bodies, bar associations, and industry stakeholders.