SUPREME COURT
Case Title : The State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : C.A. No. 3012-3026/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Bombay High Court's 2009 rulings that had granted electricity duty relief on captive power generation to industries, including Reliance Industries Ltd., for the period between 2000 and 2005. The appeals challenged the Bombay High Court judgments dated October 5, 2009, and November 7, 2009, which had quashed state notifications withdrawing exemption and allowed full electricity duty relief to industries for the intervening period.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : Himtaj Ayurveda Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 159
The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 cannot be denied on mere technical grounds when a taxpayer is not at fault. A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe allowed a writ petition by Himtaj Ayurved Pvt. Ltd and directed the authorities to issue it a discharge certificate, emphasising that the scheme is a one-time measure aimed at resolving legacy disputes and ensuring disclosure of unpaid taxes.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : WPT No. 168 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd., allowing the company to seek protection from GST recovery proceedings by following a Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular that applies in cases where the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet operational. The matter came before Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, who was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the State tax authorities under Section 107(11) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, as well as a later order rejecting the company's rectification application under Section 161.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹45 Lakh GST Demand Against HUF After Revenue Confirms ITC Reversal
Case Title : Harsh Khanna And Sons HUF v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4900/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 306
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand against a Hindu Undivided Family after revenue authorities confirmed before the Court that the disputed input tax credit had been reversed prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition challenging orders that had disallowed ITC and raised a demand of over Rs 45 lakh for the financial year 2018–19.
Case Title : Meever India Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16297/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 307
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a steel importer challenging the detention of its goods, holding that the mere issuance of a circular or decision by an authority located in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by a company engaged in the import of steel products, whose consignments had been detained at ports in Kolkata and Chennai due to rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Piyush Mafatlal Shah v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14978 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 45
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an individual taxpayer, holding that reopening of assessment was uncalled for where it was based on GST proceedings that had already been set aside by the appellate authority and where no independent material existed to indicate escapement of income. “Apart from this, there is no other material which is in possession of the respondent No.1, which could prove that there has been an escapement of income and hence the reopening was necessitated. The petitioner had supplied the Appellate Order passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, the respondent authority has failed to consider the same while passing the notice dated 29.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, in view of the categorical findings by the GST Appellate Authority in the order dated 29.03.2025, the reopening of the assessment was uncalled for,” the court said.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹42 Crore GST ITC Fraud Case
Case Title : Keyur Dipakkumar Shah vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail - Before Chargesheet) No. 6472 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)46
The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Keyur Dipakkumar Shah, accused of allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) of around Rs 42 crore under GST laws, noting that he has no criminal antecedents and faces a maximum sentence of five years. “Without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail,” Justice Nikhil S. Kariel said while allowing his plea.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order For Rejecting Appeal Solely On Non-Appearance
Case Title : Sfc Global Commodity Private Limited versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 47
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a GST appellate order, holding that the Appellate Authority “has committed an illegality” by rejecting an appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance without examining the grounds raised in the appeal memo. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a writ petition filed by SFC Global Commodity Private Limited challenging the appellate order dated September 24, 2025.
Jharkhand HC
GST Appeals Must Be Filed On Time, Writ Cannot Override Statutory Limitation: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title : M/s Nayan Enterprises v. Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4197 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)5
The Jharkhand High Court on 16 March held that a party cannot bypass statutory limitation by approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Statutory appeals must be filed within the prescribed period. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nayan Enterprises challenging a GST adjudication order, noting that it had failed to show “sufficient cause” for not filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Additional Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 101 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 42
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has ruled that the legality of search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, make the material collected during such proceedings inadmissible for initiating action under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved. The bench held that "The legality or otherwise of the search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, render the material gathered during such proceedings inadmissible for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 74, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved."
CESTAT
Case Title : McCann Erickson (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Commissioner of CGST & CX GST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52352 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 126
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the Government cannot deny refund of excess service tax paid by mistake merely on the ground that the refund claim was filed after the limitation period, observing that amounts not legally payable as tax cannot be retained by the authorities. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya said that where tax is paid without any legal liability, such payment does not assume the character of service tax and therefore would not be governed by the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Tax Refund Cannot Be Denied As Time-Barred Where Service Was Not Provided: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER, DIVISION- CONNAUGHT PLACE, CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51091 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 127
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20 March held that refund of service tax paid on services which were ultimately not provided cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing appeals filed by Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd against rejection of refund claims on the ground of time bar.
Service Tax Demand Unsustainable Where Warranty Services Qualify As Works Contract: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Electrocare v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50720 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 128
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 March, held that a service tax demand cannot be sustained if warranty services qualify as Works Contract Services and all material particulars are duly disclosed, and that invoking the extended period of limitation is improper in the absence of suppression. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Electrocare, set aside the service tax demand raised for FY 2014–15, holding that the demand was unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Paddy Reaper Without Binder Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. VST Tillers Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40879 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 126
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that paddy reapers imported without a binder attachment cannot claim concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., which applies only to “reaper-cum-binder” machines. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by VST Tillers Tractors Ltd., while also holding that confiscation and penalty cannot be imposed where there is no misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.
Crossing Green Channel With Gold Hidden In Paste Form Shows Intent To Smuggle: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Shri Senthil Kumar Anbalagan v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30558 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 127
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a passenger's concealment of gold in paste form on the body and crossing the green channel at an international airport clearly establishes intent to smuggle, justifying absolute confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that concealment and non-declaration after opting for the green channel show deliberate evasion: "Once the passenger arrives from the foreign country and carries goods liable for declaration, the liability under the Customs Act arises regardless of the precise point of interception. The concealment of gold in paste form is a common modus operandi adapted to evade detection, and such conduct clearly establishes intention to smuggle."
Department Cannot Demand 6% Of Value On Exempted Electricity Once Credit Is Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. EID Parry India Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41118 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 128
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that once a taxpayer reverses proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods, the Department cannot compel payment of 6% of the value of such goods. The Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, allowed the appeals by EID Parry India Ltd., holding the demands and penalties unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Case Title : M/s Indus Towers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60669 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 129
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed appeals filed by Indus Towers Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services relating to telecom towers and shelters is admissible The dispute arose from multiple show cause notices issued for the financial years 2014–15 and 2015–16, alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used for providing passive telecom infrastructure.
Confiscation Cannot Survive Once Declared Transaction Value Is Accepted: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Kumar Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85820 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 130
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 March, held that the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained once the declared transaction value is accepted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties imposed on Kumar Impex, reasoning that once the transaction value is accepted, the allegation of undervaluation and resulting revenue loss no longer survives.
Failure To Specify Statutory Provisions Vitiates Service Tax Demand: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Trade Line v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42207 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 131
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 17 March set aside a service tax demand against Trade Line, holding that the Department cannot proceed when it fails to put the taxpayer on notice of the statutory provisions applicable to the relevant period. The Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “We also find that the Appellant has rightly contended that the Show Cause Notice No.30/2013 dated 18.09.2013 has not put the appellant to notice of the relevant statutory provisions post 01-07-2012 in order to sustain the demand for the period from 01-07-2012.”
CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds Transfer Of CENVAT Credit After Shift Of Centralised Registration
Case Title : Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1017 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 132
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh Bench, has recently held that transfer of unutilised CENVAT credit by a taxpayer from its Jaipur office to Gurgaon upon shifting of centralised registration is legally sustainable, in the absence of any dispute regarding the validity of such credit at the original location. A coram of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, while rejecting the Revenue's objection to the transfer of credit, noted that the Department itself had not questioned the credit originally availed at Jaipur, observing that “the department has not disputed the CENVAT Credit availed by the Assessees at their Jaipur office. The department has also not alleged that the CENVAT Credit had already been utilized in Jaipur.”
Transportation And Disposal Of Fly Ash Not Cargo, No Service Tax Leviable: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Threyambaka Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 3308 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 133
On 24 March, the Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore, held that transportation and disposal of fly ash cannot be classified as 'Cargo Handling Service' under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi, set aside substantial service tax demands raised by the Department against Threyambaka Enterprises.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside TANTRANSCO Demand As Time Barred, But Clarifies Rent-a-Cab Service Taxable
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40323 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 134
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24 March, held that hiring motor vehicles for official use, classified as rent-a-cab services are not eligible for exemption under the reverse charge mechanism and remain liable to service tax, as they are merely facilitative in nature and not integral to the core function of electricity transmission A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. clarified that such services does not have a direct and proximate nexus with the activity of transmission or distribution of electricity.
Case Title : Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 89472 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 135
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 March, held that re-determination of value of imported goods without proper evidence of undervaluation is unsustainable in law. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed an appeal by Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty by the customs authorities. The Bench stated: “…the whole process of arriving at the re-determined value… is contrary to the law and factually incorrect.”
Import Value Cannot Be Re-Determined Solely Based On Local Engineer Certificate: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40225 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 135
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25 March held that the declared value of imported second-hand machinery cannot be rejected and re-determined solely on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's certificate. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed an appeal filed by Abirami Weaving Mills against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. It held: “...we are of the view that the redetermination of declared value based solely on local Chartered Engineer's certificate is not in order....”
Amortised Cost Of Moulds And Dies Includible In Assessable Value Under Excise Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Best Cast IT Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41797 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 136
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 March 2026 held that the amortised value of moulds and dies supplied by customers must be included in the assessable value of finished goods under excise law. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Best Cast IT Ltd., a manufacturer of aluminium die-cast automotive components.
Case Title : Vardhman Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55845 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 136
Ruling that a notification granting nil customs duty on cotton imports cannot be applied to Bills of Entry filed before it came into force, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected Vardhman Textiles' claim for exemption. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd., affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85618 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 137
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for outward transportation, holding that where goods are supplied on FOR (Free on Road) destination basis, the buyer's premises can be treated as the “place of removal." A single-member coram comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma dealing with an appeal filed by Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. challenging the denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services used for transporting goods to customers' premises.
GSTAT
No Pre-Deposit For Revenue In GSTAT Appeals; Principal Bench Issues Instructions For Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench has clarified that appeals filed by the Revenue will not require payment of pre-deposit or court fee while issuing instructions on the documents that must accompany appeals filed before the Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In instructions dated March 10, 2025, the tribunal stated that appeals filed through Form APL-05 (appeal filed by Revenue) must include soft copies of the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal, statement of facts, and grounds of appeal.
GSTAT New Delhi Orders ₹47.71 Lakh Refund In Anti‑Profiteering Case, Holds Penalty Non‑Retrospective
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/113/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 11
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi directed Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer, to pass on Rs. 47.71 lakh, along with interest, to homebuyers for failing to transfer GST input tax credit benefits to them. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad allowed the appeal filed by the Director General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP), holding that the developer had engaged in profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It further clarified that the penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be applied retrospectively.
Interest On Profiteered Amounts Must Run From Date of Collection: GSTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/130/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 12
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi on 20 March held that interest on profiteered amounts must be paid from the date of collection of excess amounts. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad rejected the contention that interest should run only from project completion. He wrote: “Rule 133(3)(b)… expressly empowers the Authority to order return of the amount… along with interest… from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of its return. The provision is mandatory in nature”, while directing a real estate developer to refund ₹11,91,763 to homebuyers.
GSTAT Confirms Anti-Profiteering Demand Against Real Estate Company, Directs Refund Of ₹17.75 Lakh
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti Profiteering, DGAP V. Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : NAPA/132/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 13
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 23 March confirmed an anti-profiteering demand against Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd, a real estate developer, directed it to pay Rs. 17,75,622 along with applicable interest to homebuyers. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain accepting the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), recorded: “the report of the DGAP dated 18.12.2024 is accordingly accepted.”
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Unnathi Associates
Case Number : NAPA/129/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 14
Recently, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), in New Delhi, held that liability to pay interest on profiteered amounts arises from the time of supply, that is, when excess consideration is collected from buyers, and not from the date of obtaining a completion certificate. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order on 19 March in an appeal filed by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) against Unnathi Associates, developer of the “Raunak Heights” project in Thane.
GSTAT Orders LIC HFL Care Homes To Refund Rs 2.31 Crore To 240 Homebuyers For GST Profiteering
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/112/PB/2025
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd. guilty of profiteering and directed it to refund Rs 2.31 crore with 18% interest to 240 homebuyers for failing to pass on additional input tax credit (ITC) benefits available after the introduction of GST from July 1, 2017. A coram of President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order in proceedings arising from an investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP).
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GSTAT Kolkata Bench Starts Functioning
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has commenced functioning, with all appeals from designated jurisdictions now required to be filed before it. The Tribunal clarified that it will exercise jurisdiction over West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Public Notice No. 01/2026 dated 23.03.2026, issued by the GSTAT Kolkata Bench. The office of the Kolkata Bench is located at 2/5, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata–700027 (Old Door Sanchar Bhawan).
Centre Designates 22 GSTAT Judicial Members As Vice Presidents For State Benches
The Ministry of Finance has designated Judicial Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) as Vice Presidents for State GSTAT Benches across India, in exercise of powers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Office Order No. 01/2026, dated 23 March 2026 states: “The President of India… is pleased to designate the following Judicial Members of GSTAT as Vice Presidents of their respective state benches.”