HIGH COURTS
Delhi HC
Case Title : GST APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION V/s UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF FINANCE & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C)-8325/2026
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) Bar Association, Delhi, challenging the June 30, 2026 deadline for filing appeals before the GSTAT in respect of orders communicated prior to April 1, 2026 and seeking extension of the filing period by at least three months from June 15, 2026, when the e-filing procedure was formally explained to stakeholders. However, the court declined to grant any interim relief at this stage. A vacation bench of Justices Mini Pushkarna and Vinod Kumar observed that it would consider the issue after receiving replies from the respondents. "I am not granting any interim relief. Let them file a reply, we'll see. In case it is to be done, we'll see that," the bench ruled.
Gauhati HC
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Through Cryptic, Non-Speaking Orders: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Smt. Sunita Rai v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/3165/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 18
The Gauhati High Court has recently set aside an order cancelling a taxpayer's GST registration, holding that an adjudicating authority cannot pass a cryptic and non-speaking order that carries adverse civil consequences. The court observed that even where a taxpayer fails to respond to a show cause notice, the statutory authority remains under an obligation to provide reasons and demonstrate application of mind while cancelling registration. "If an order is passed without giving a proper reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one. Non-speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision," observed the bench.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Soham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 15316 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 93
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the validity of a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission regulation that requires consumers procuring electricity through Open Access to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge (CSS). The court rejected a challenge to the surcharge mechanism, holding that it is consistent with the Electricity Act, the Electricity Rules and the National Tariff Policy. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2025 were framed under powers conferred by the Electricity Act, 2003 and substantially adopt the methodology contemplated under the National Tariff Policy.
Kerala HC
Property Tax Revision Invalid Without Mandatory Publication Compliance: Kerala High Court
Case Title : P.V. Suresh v. The Haripad Municipality
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 13042 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 111
The Kerala High Court on 2 June quashed enhanced property tax demands issued by the Haripad Municipality, holding that revised property tax rates cannot be enforced without compliance with the mandatory notification and publication requirements prescribed under the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax Services and Surcharge) Rules, 2011. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was deciding a batch of writ petitions challenging enhanced property tax demands issued in respect of various buildings within the Municipality's jurisdiction.
Madras HC
GST Proceedings Maintainable Against Heirs Even Without Action During Taxpayer's Lifetime: Madras HC
Case Title : V. Damayanti v. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.10000 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 155
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 16 June held that Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits GST authorities to initiate proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer even if no proceedings were initiated during the taxpayer's lifetime. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a writ petition filed by V. Damayanti, wife of the late V. Vasudevan, proprietor of Vasu Chemicals, challenging proceedings initiated after Vasudevan's death.
CESTAT
Case Title : T.D. Shibu v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and CGST - Raipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55488 of 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 363
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld a service tax demand as well as interest against a taxpayer engaged in providing works contract services. It found that the taxpayer did not make the payment required under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 within the prescribed timeline and was therefore not eligible for its benefits. This is despite the fact that the deadline had been extended until June 30, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, however, set aside the penalty imposed on T.D. Shibu. The tribunal noted that the delay occurred during the pandemic and that there was no indication of mala fide intent.
CESTAT Hyderabad Remands Excise Duty Dispute After Retrospective Relief
Case Title : Srinivasa Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Hyderabad - III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 23278 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 364
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has remanded an excise duty dispute involving supplies made to Indian Railways for fresh adjudication after finding that a retrospective exemption introduced through the Finance Act, 2015 could affect the basis on which the demand was confirmed. A coram of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed that the exemption covered the same period involved in the dispute. The tribunal therefore held that the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied Over Wrong Registration Code After Payment: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Purushottam Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vibhag 14 v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-I
Case Number : 2SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 10122 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 365
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has held that "technical book keeping errors" cannot defeat a refund claim where the money has already reached the government exchequer. The tribunal directed the department to refund ₹71.55 lakh to a Surat housing society after finding that the Revenue had treated the residential complex as a single entity while raising the service tax demand but sought to treat it as separate entities while considering the refund.
Case Title : Baxter (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V), Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87685 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 366
On 23 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with kidney dialysis machines are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018 and attract 12% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), and not 18% IGST under the residual tariff entry CTH 9033. Technical Member M.M. Parthiban and Judicial Member Ajay Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Baxter (India) Private Limited and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
Industrial Promotion Subsidy Cannot Be Added To Excise Assessable Value: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Responsive Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Palghar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87049 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 367
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently ruled that the Industrial Promotion Subsidy received by a taxpayer under the Maharashtra government's industrial incentive scheme cannot be added to the assessable value of goods for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty. A coram of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that the subsidy was a state incentive linked to eligible capital investment and regional industrial development. It was not consideration flowing directly or indirectly from buyers.
Customs Cannot Reassess Export Shipping Bills Or Deny DEPB Benefits After Export: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mungad Strips & Alloy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and M/s Jiji Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 50455 and 50456 of 2021
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 368
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that Customs authorities cannot alter the value or description of goods after shipping bills have been assessed and exports completed. Any such change must be made through the statutory remedies available under the Customs Act. Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao passed the ruling while allowing appeals filed by Mungad Strips & Alloy Pvt. Ltd. and Jiji Industries Ltd. against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Indore.
Customs Must Follow Valuation Rules Sequentially Before Using Residual Method: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rochees Time Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 210, 213 and 214 of 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 369
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has held that customs authorities cannot invoke the residual method of valuation without first ruling out the valuation methods that precede it under the Customs Valuation Rules. The ruling resulted in most of the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties imposed on Rochees Time Pvt. Ltd. being set aside. A coram comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed Rochees Time Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal.
Case Title : New Mangalore Port Trust v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2012
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 370
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the balance service tax demand raised against New Mangalore Port Trust on lease and licence fees collected from users of vacant land for the period prior to July 1, 2010. A coram of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by the port trust. “In view of the above, we do not find any justification in sustaining the demand prior to 01.07.2010.”
Tax Department Cannot Dictate CENVAT Credit Compliance Method: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50844 of 2019
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 371
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that tax authorities cannot compel a taxpayer to adopt a particular method of complying with its obligations under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Setting aside the CENVAT credit and service tax demands, along with the interest and penalties, the tribunal ruled that the choice of compliance rests with the taxpayer. A bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata v. Allahabad Bank
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75720 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 372
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the dropping of a service tax demand of nearly ₹20 crore against Allahabad Bank. It held that the bank had paid the service tax before availing CENVAT credit, even though the corresponding invoices were issued later. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan dismissed the Revenue's appeal after examining the invoices and remittance records.
Astronomy Coaching Not Exempt As 'Culture' Under Mega Exemption Notification: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Space Technology and Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52883 of 2019
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 373
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June held that coaching and training services in astronomy do not fall within the expression "culture" under the Mega Exemption Notification and are therefore liable to service tax. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Space Technology and Education Pvt. Ltd., while directing the Department to recalculate the company's tax liability after extending the benefit of cum-tax valuation under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
HSN Mismatch In Certificate Of Origin Alone Cannot Deny Customs Exemption: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Suraj Constructions v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40755 of 2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 375
On 25 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a discrepancy in the HSN classification mentioned in a Certificate of Origin cannot, by itself, justify denial of a customs exemption when the imported goods are otherwise correctly classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of Rs.14.50 lakh against the importer of Clear Float Glass, along with the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalties and interest.
Voyage Charter Agreements Not Taxable As Supply Of Tangible Goods Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Vedanta Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41995 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 374
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June set aside a service tax demand of Rs.2.42 crore against Vedanta Ltd., holding that voyage charter agreements entered into for transportation of goods cannot be classified as "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use Service" under the Finance Act, 1994, as they are contracts for carriage of goods and do not involve transfer of possession or effective control of vessels. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed Vedanta's appeal against the Order-in-Original confirming a service tax demand of Rs.2,42,70,786, along with interest and penalties, including penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Kolkata Says Customs Supervision Charges Payable On MOT, Not CRC, For Limited Deployment
Case Title : Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75948 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 376
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹1.37 crore demand raised against a duty-free shop operator. A coram comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that customs supervision charges could only be recovered on a Merchant Over Time (MOT) basis and not on a Cost Recovery Charges (CRC) basis where customs officers were utilized only for limited hours. It held that the Revenue could not demand CRC in the absence of evidence showing that customs officers had been deployed throughout the day or for the better part thereof.
Case Title : Rochi Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 231 of 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 377
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has reduced a customs duty demand against Jaipur-based watch manufacturer Rochi Ram & Sons from about ₹5.53 crore to ₹7.9 lakh. It held that Customs authorities did not follow the valuation procedure prescribed under the Customs Valuation Rules after rejecting the declared import values. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that Customs authorities were justified in rejecting the declared transaction values.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Construction Of Roads Inside Krishi Upaj Mandi Eligible For Service Tax Exemption
Case Title : Maturam Construction company v. The Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 52462 of 2022
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 378
Construction of roads within the premises of a Krishi Upaj Mandi is eligible for service tax exemption, while works such as auction platform coverings, boundary walls, check posts and an approach gate are not, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled in a dispute involving a Rajasthan contractor. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao held that roads inside a Krishi Upaj Mandi are meant for use by farmers, traders and the general public. It, however, found that auction platforms and other market structures cannot be treated as post-harvest storage infrastructure.
Case Title : M/s. Gem Granites v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 26961 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 379
The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an order denying customs and central excise duty exemptions to Gem Granites. It held that, in the facts of the case, imported capital goods used in quarry operations qualified for the exemption because the granite blocks extracted from the quarry were the basic raw material used to manufacture the export products.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs(Export), Nhava Sheva v. Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86911 of 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 380
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that glucometers are classifiable as instruments for chemical analysis and not as medical diagnostic instruments for customs purposes. Upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' order in favour of Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal dismissed the Customs Department's appeal. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M. M. Parthiban examined the scientific functioning of a glucometer and observed that its analytical function warranted classification under the tariff heading for instruments used for chemical analysis.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Rules Yoga Camps Conducted By Banaskantha-Based Charitable Trust Exempt From GST
Case Title : In Re Sanskar Foundation
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/22
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that yoga camps conducted by Sanskar Foundation qualify as charitable activities and are exempt from GST. It observed that the advancement of religion, spirituality, or yoga falls within the scope of the exemption available to eligible charitable entities. The exemption, however, is subject to the applicant holding a valid registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat AAR Rules Compensation Recovered From Transporters For Transit Losses Not Liable To GSR
Case Title : In Re Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/23
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that compensation recovered by a business from transporters for injury, loss or damage suffered during the transportation of goods is not liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). It held that such recoveries compensate the business for the injury, loss or damage suffered and are not consideration for a taxable supply. The ruling was delivered by a two-member bench comprising CGST Member Sushma and SGST Member Vishal Malani on an application filed by Pon Pure Chemical India Private Limited.