SUPREME COURT
Case Title : The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s. Premium Suiting Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2016 | 2026 INSC 1158
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 339
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) ruled that dyeing and bleaching fabrics received from handloom and powerloom units on a job-work basis do not amount to manufacture for the purpose of levying textile cess under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the word 'manufacture' is not defined under the Act and cannot be interpreted by borrowing its definition from another law.
Aggrieved Party Must Get At Least One Hearing On Merits: Supreme Court Restores Customs Appeal
Case Title : International Air Charter Operations (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) Diary No. 26745/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 341
The Supreme Court has recently restored an aircraft operator's customs appeal after it failed to get its claim for a duty exemption examined on merits before any forum. The court held that an aggrieved party must have at least one appellate forum to address its grievances. “Right of appeal being a precious remedy, Courts shall endeavour to ensure that an aggrieved party has at least one appellate forum to address its grievances,” a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Against 18% GST On Online Legal Research Services
Case Title : Aniket Gupta v. Union of India and 4 Others
Case Number : PIL No. 2544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 90
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research and legal educational data-based services, questioning why the petitioner had waited until 2026 to challenge a tax rate that had been in place since 2017. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the advocate had not explained what had suddenly prompted him to question the tax rate.
Bombay HC
Stamp Duty Refund Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Original Receipt Is Lost: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Anita Jayant Oswal v. Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps & Ors., with Vineet Kumar Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 5964 of 2019 and 6199 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 604
The Bombay High Court has held that a stamp duty refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the original e-Secured Bank and Treasury Receipt (ESBTR) has been lost, if the payment, loss and non-use of the receipt can be established through official records and other reliable evidence. Justice Amit Borkar observed that the State cannot retain stamp duty that is otherwise refundable under the law merely because the original receipt is unavailable.
No Pre-Deposit Of Disputed GST Interest Required When Entire Tax Is Paid: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Roadway Solutions India Infra. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 14038, 14039 and 14040 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 611
On 27 October, the Bombay High Court held that no pre-deposit of disputed GST interest is required when the entire tax amount has been paid, and that recovery of the remaining dues is deemed to be stayed once the statutory requirements for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal are satisfied. A Bench comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed three writ petitions filed by Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. challenging recovery proceedings for approximately Rs. 22.12 crore towards interest on delayed GST payments.
Case Title : Thakkar Investment & Finance Company v. Chief Controller (Revenue Authority) & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 7229 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 615
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that stamp authorities cannot demand fresh stamp duty on a subsequent conveyance merely because a property's market value has increased. This applies when stamp duty and penalty have already been paid on an earlier Agreement for Sale treated as a deemed conveyance. Justice Amit Borkar quashed an additional stamp duty demand of ₹9.27 lakh against Thakkar Investment & Finance Company. The court held that the subsequent conveyance merely completed the earlier transaction.
Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court Allows GST Appeal Beyond Limitation Subject To 50% Tax Deposit
Case Title : Korba Steel Castings v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Case Number : WPT No. 58 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 27
The Chhattisgarh High Court has permitted a taxpayer to file a statutory appeal against an ex parte GST assessment order despite the expiry of the limitation period, subject to depositing 50% of the assessed tax liability of ₹8.17 lakh. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas exercised the court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to allow Korba Steel Castings to pursue the statutory remedy. The court observed, "thus, a case for interference by this Court to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties is made out."
Delhi HC
GST Department Cannot Bypass ₹2-Crore Appeal Limit Citing Cascading Effects: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise & Ors. v. Riya Travel and Tours India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the GST Department against travel companies, holding that the department cannot bypass the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals merely by citing the cascading effect of the issues involved. The division bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that appeals involving amounts below ₹2 crore are not maintainable before the High Court unless they fall within the specific exceptions prescribed under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) instructions.
Timely Generated GST Show Cause Notice Uploaded After Deadline Is Time-Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5076/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1172
The Delhi High Court has quashed a GST show-cause notice and the consequential demand order against a Hyundai car dealership, holding that a notice generated within the prescribed time but uploaded on the GST portal after the statutory deadline is time-barred. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that an internally generated notice that remains unconfirmed on the GST system and is not communicated to the taxpayer cannot be treated as validly issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : NTPC Ltd v. SDMC & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4144/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1173
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by NTPC Ltd challenging a municipal electricity tax demand of around ₹197.15 crore on electricity consumed to operate its Badarpur Thermal Power Station. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that electricity used for auxiliary purposes at a power plant constitutes taxable consumption and cannot be treated merely as part of the process of generating electricity.
Case Title : Manoj Kumar, Proprietor, M K Steel Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 50/2026 and W.P.(C) 2528/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1178
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with GST demand orders against a trader accused of availing and passing on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) through invoices allegedly unsupported by genuine supplies of goods, observing that a detailed show-cause notice setting out the alleged transactions and modus operandi did not warrant interference at the writ stage. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Pashar relegated the trader to statutory appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court Asks NDMC To Explain ₹2.51 Crore Additional Property Tax Demand On Khan Market Shop
Case Title : GURVINDER SALUJA v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4427/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1179
The Delhi High Court has directed the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to provide a detailed, period-wise calculation of an additional property tax demand of around ₹2.51 crore raised against a shop in Delhi's Khan Market. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar directed NDMC to furnish the computation within 15 days, along with legible copies of the assessment orders, notices and other documents relied upon to raise the demand.
Case Title : RAJKALPANA TRAVELS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI NORTH COMMISSIONERATE
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6040/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1185
The Delhi High Court has directed a taxpayer to challenge a GST demand of ₹4.49 crore before the statutory appellate authority after it alleged that notices fixing personal hearings during adjudication proceedings were sent to an incorrect email address. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that the controversy concerning the service of hearing notices, including whether they were communicated to the correct registered email address, could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : OYSTER STEEL AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE VII GROUP 61 CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AUDIT I
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15619/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1190
The Delhi High Court has held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration does not bar the authorities from auditing records for the period during which the registration had been granted. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed, “Where a registration had been granted and had not yet been cancelled during the period proposed for audit, that factual nexus satisfies Section 65 even if the registration is subsequently cancelled retrospectively. “
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Says Delayed Appellate Order Upload Can't Bar GST Refund, Allows ₹5.41 Lakh Claim
Case Title : Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 4610 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 159
The Gujarat High Court on 23 October allowed Panila Chem Limited's petition and treated the date of uploading Form GST APL-04 as the relevant date for considering its refund claim, given the peculiar facts of the case A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that a delayed upload of an appellate order's summary on the GST portal cannot defeat a refund directed by the appellate authority in exceptional circumstances.
Starch Used In Liquid Glucose Production Qualifies For DFIA Benefits Under SION: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Sanstar Bio Polymers Ltd
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 804 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 160
The Gujarat High Court on 21 October held that starch used as an immediate input in manufacturing liquid glucose concentrate qualifies for duty-free import benefits under the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme when classified under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) Entry E22, rather than E76, which specifies maize. A Division Bench comprising Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Nirzar S. Desai dismissed the Revenue Department's appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order in favour of Sanstar Bio Polymers Ltd., holding that Customs authorities could not invoke Sections 113(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, without wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in obtaining the DFIA authorisations.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Aditya Industries v/s State of H.P. & others
Case Number : CWP No.3962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 37
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that tax authorities invoking Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (HPGST) Act, 2017, must clearly specify whether the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Court observed that these grounds must be substantiated by the allegations in the show cause notice, and the statutory provision cannot be invoked merely by reproducing its language without establishing the factual basis for doing so.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Bimal Poddar @ Bimal Kumar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number : Cr. Revision No. 490 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR) 18
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of a firm partner for deliberately misdescribing goods to evade commercial tax under the Bihar Finance Act. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava found that the discrepancies in the description of goods were deliberate and intended to evade tax. The court observed: "Perusal of the material exhibits reveals that there are some discrepancies with regard to goods which are clearly apparent and these discrepancies with regard to goods has been intentionally made to evade commercial tax."
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation & Others v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WP 33292/2026
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought the State Government's response to a challenge by television broadcasters to the 2% cess imposed on TV channels operating in Karnataka. The court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the broadcasters in connection with the levy. The petition has been filed by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), along with broadcasters including JioStar India and Zee Entertainment Enterprises, challenging the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024, its 2025 amendment, the rules framed under the legislation, and a notification bringing the Act into force from September 30, 2026.
Kerala HC
Enhanced Court Fee Applies To Tax Disputes Initiated On Or After April 1, 2016: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Mohammed Rafi v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 203
The Kerala High Court has held that the enhanced additional court fee of 1% of the amount involved in a dispute applies to tax appeals and revision petitions only when the underlying dispute commenced on or after April 1, 2016. “Thus, the lis, in matters of taxation, commences when the taxing authority being not satisfied with the correctness of the return filed by the assessee, calls for materials or evidence to justify the claim of the assessee. If a notice has been issued by the assessing officer pursuant to the return filed by the assessee, a lis can be held to have commenced and the right of appeal, including the obligation to pay the court fee in the appeal, as existing on that date when the lis commenced, becomes vested right.” Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Hindustan Abhikaran, A Registered Partnership Firm & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 8169 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 77
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a demand notice issued by the Khandwa Municipal Corporation threatening to auction a landlord's property for recovery of property tax, despite the Corporation being aware of an earlier High Court ruling on recovery of dues from rented premises. The earlier ruling had held that the Corporation could not lock rented premises to recover property tax. It also clarified that recovery from a tenant could be effected through attachment of rent due in respect of the property.
Madras HC
Case Title : M/s. EMC Limited v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.25527 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 331
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a company sold as a going concern during liquidation cannot claim that its liabilities are automatically extinguished under the clean-slate principle of insolvency law. Justice C. Saravanan observed that a buyer acquiring a corporate debtor as a going concern takes over its assets and liabilities as a package, and cannot avoid liabilities merely because the company has undergone liquidation.
GSTAT
GST Refund Rejection Without Mandatory Notice Cannot Be Cured At Appellate Stage: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : APL/32/THN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(TNA)64
The Thane Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 22 October held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected without issuing a mandatory show cause notice and granting a hearing, and that an opportunity to present the case at the appellate stage cannot cure this statutory violation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ramesh Nair and Technical Member Prallhad S. Paranjape set aside the appellate orders upholding the partial rejection of refund claims filed by Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.
GST Refund Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Provisional ITC Reversal: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Ajit Kumar Minz v. M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited
Case Number : APL/53/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK)65
On 22 October, the Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that a provisional reversal of input tax credit (ITC) and a pending investigation into an alleged stock shortage cannot, by themselves, establish a tax liability or justify rejection of a GST refund claim. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar dismissed the tax department's appeal against the order allowing B.L. Agro Industries Limited a refund of Rs. 14.35 crore, holding that the department had not established that the reversed amount represented a self-assessed tax liability.
Supplier's Retrospective GST Cancellation Not Enough To Deny ITC Without Verification: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/Kalyan
Case Number : APL/52/THN/2026 & APL/53/THN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(THA) 66
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane, on 22 October held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration, by itself, does not justify denial of input tax credit (ITC) without independent verification of the transactions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ramesh Nair and Technical Member Prallhad S. Paranjape set aside the orders denying ITC to Trivesh Enterprises LLP and dismissing its appeals for non-prosecution, directing the GST authorities to reconsider the matters on merits.
Delayed Stock Entries From Genuine Transactions Cannot Alone Justify Confiscation: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v. M/s Time Steels
Case Number : APL/103/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 67
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, has held that a delay in recording genuine business transactions in the books of accounts does not, by itself, justify confiscation of stock. The tribunal observed, “There is a vast legal distinction between a delayed entry of a genuine transaction and an unaccounted transaction designed for clandestine removal. Delayed bookkeeping backed by regular commercial invoices cannot be branded as a statutory offense under Section 130.”
GSTAT Delhi Directs Candeur Constructions To Pass On ₹1.63 Crore ITC Benefit To 188 Homebuyers
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Candeur Constructions
Case Number : NAPA/106A/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(DEL) 68
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, has directed Candeur Constructions to pass on an ITC benefit of ₹1.63 crore, including GST, to 188 homebuyers of its Bengaluru project, Candeur Carlisle. It also directed the builder to pay 18% interest from the date the higher amount was collected from each homebuyer until the benefit is passed on.
GST Demand Cannot Be Sustained On New Grounds Not Put To Taxpayer In Notice: GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Fortinet Technologies India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
Case Number : APL/88/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 69
On 27 October, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru, held that an appellate authority cannot uphold a GST demand on grounds that were never communicated to the taxpayer through a show-cause notice. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Prabhakaran P M and Technical Member Ravi Jesuraj S set aside the GST demand against Fortinet Technologies India Private Limited, holding that the department had failed to issue a proper show-cause notice and that the appellate authority had introduced new grounds to sustain the demand.
Refund Of Pre-July 2022 Accumulated ITC Cannot Be Denied Based On CBIC Circular: GSTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Kedia Agro v. Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : APL/194/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (HYD) 70
The Hyderabad Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 October held that refund of input tax credit (ITC) accumulated under an inverted duty structure before 18 July 2022 cannot be denied merely because the refund application was filed later. A Bench of Judicial Member Sushil Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas ruled that an executive circular cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims for an earlier period, and allowed Kedia Agro's appeal against the rejection of its Rs. 61.47 lakh refund claim and set aside the orders of the original adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority.
Case Title : Ravish Kumar Singh v. M/s Mani Ply
Case Number : APL/239/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 71
The State Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Lucknow, on 27 October held that a penalty for excess goods found during transportation cannot be imposed on the entire consignment when the remaining goods are covered by valid documents. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar dismissed the Department's appeal against the First Appellate Authority's decision to reduce the penalty imposed on Mani Ply from Rs. 57,870 to Rs. 5,375.40 under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017.
GSTAT Hyderabad Bench Sets Aside ₹68.52 Lakh Demand For Claiming IGST Credit As CGST And SGST
Case Title : Innominds Software Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : APL/51/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(HYD) 72
The Hyderabad Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has set aside a GST demand of ₹68.52 lakh after holding that claiming IGST credit under CGST and SGST instead of IGST amounts to a reporting error and not wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Bench comprising Judicial Member A.P. Ravi and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas held that the inadvertent error in the tax head under which credit was claimed does not make the credit ineligible under Section 73 of the GST Act.
CESTAT
Delayed Retraction Can't Undermine Service Tax Demand Backed By Signed Digital Records: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East v. AGC Reality Private Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51492 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 627
On 23 October the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi held that delayed retraction of statements admitting unaccounted cash receipts from flat buyers cannot discredit a service tax demand when the statements were reaffirmed during the investigation and corroborated by signed printouts of electronic records recovered from the company. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the Revenue's appeal against AGC Reality Private Limited and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order overturning the service tax demand.
Gross Contract Value Alone Cannot Prove Service Tax Collection From Customers: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : Skilltech Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20619 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 628
On 23 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore held that receipt of the gross contract amount does not, by itself, establish that a service provider collected service tax from its customers, particularly when the services were exempt from tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside the order rejecting the refund claim of Skilltech Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of unjust enrichment and remanded the matter for verification of the relevant documents.
Exempt Basic Customs Duty Cannot Be Added To Import Value For IGST Calculation: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s TGI International v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85502 of 2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 629
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled that customs duty exempted under an applicable notification cannot be added at the normal tariff rate to the value of imported goods for calculating Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), where the importer has satisfied the conditions for the exemption. The tribunal found that TGI International was entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 19/2015-Customs dated April 1, 2015, after complying with the applicable requirements of the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme. Although the importer claimed zero BCD, the customs electronic system added BCD at the normal tariff rate of 20% when calculating IGST at 5% on the transaction value. The tribunal held that the BCD claimed as zero had to be considered while calculating IGST, rather than adding duty at the normal tariff rate.
CESTAT Allahabad Quashes ₹2.16 Lakh Demand Against Doccel For Misclassification, No Suppression
Case Title : M/s Doccel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70284 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 630
On 23 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, set aside a service tax demand against Doccel Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the department cannot demand service tax without correctly classifying the services provided. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava also held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a specific finding that the company suppressed facts with the intention to evade tax.
Case Title : Smrithi Constructions v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40540 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 631
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Wednesday held that an educational institution's income exceeding its expenditure cannot, by itself, establish that its buildings are used primarily for commercial purposes. Setting aside a ₹3.31 crore service tax demand against Smrithi Constructions, the Tribunal held that the Department had failed to establish that buildings constructed for educational institutions and a hospital were used primarily for commerce or industry.
Different Views On Import Classification Do Not Establish Broker Misconduct: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Anubhav Cargo Movers v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51013 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 632
On 28 October, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a difference of opinion over the classification of imported goods does not, by itself, establish misconduct by a Customs Broker. A Bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed Anubhav Cargo Movers' appeal against the revocation of its Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Missing Invoices Alone Do Not Prove Smuggling, Sets Aside Gold Confiscation
Case Title : Mohammed Abdul Razzak v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30169 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 633
On 29 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that the absence of purchase invoices for gold does not, by itself, establish that the gold was smuggled into India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the confiscation of 377.08 grams of gold worth Rs. 19.12 lakh and the penalty of Rs. 3.83 lakh that Customs authorities imposed on Mohammed Abdul Razzak, proprietor of Iqbal Jewellers, under the Customs Act, 1962.
Income Tax Records Alone Cannot Establish Service Tax Liability: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Orissa Bengal Transport Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75250 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 634
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that receipts reflected in Income Tax records cannot, by themselves, establish that the amounts represent consideration for taxable services. It set aside a ₹3.03 crore service tax demand against Orissa Bengal Transport Co. “The mere reflection of receipts in the appellant's Income Tax records may furnish a basis for initiating an inquiry, but cannot, by itself, directly establish either the taxable character of those receipts or the precise nature of the services allegedly rendered,” the tribunal held.
Service Tax Demand Requires Proper Comparison Of Audited Accounts And ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s My Car Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70213 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 635
On Thursday, 29 October, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a service tax demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of differences between figures recorded in financial statements and tax returns without properly examining the records. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava allowed an appeal filed by My Car Pvt. Ltd. against a service tax demand, holding that the department could not selectively rely on discrepancies in CENVAT credit figures while ignoring other details relating to tax liability and payments.
Case Title : Instamod Air Pipe Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76148 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 636
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹12.59 lakh customs duty demand and an equivalent penalty imposed on an importer for allegedly wrongly claiming preferential duty benefits under the India-Malaysia trade agreement. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority relied on emails that were neither mentioned in the show-cause notice nor provided to the importer for an explanation.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹3.03 Crore Demand Against Ford India Over Premature CENVAT Credit
Case Title : M/s. Ford India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41610 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 637
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 29 October set aside the denial of CENVAT credit to Ford India Private Limited, holding that its Sanand unit was eligible to avail the credit upon commencement of production and that taking credit before receiving the capital goods amounted, at most, to premature availment. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed: “It is also an undenied fact that upon commencement of production activity, Sanand unit was eligible to avail the cenvat credit and hence, at the most, it may amount to availment of cenvat credit prematurely i.e. prior to the receipt of the capital goods.”
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Customs Department's Bid To Classify Imported Supari As Split Areca Nuts
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Guru Krupa Traders
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40433 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 638
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has rejected the Customs Department's attempt to reclassify imported unflavoured supari as split areca nuts, upholding the importer's declared classification. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the Department had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the goods should be classified as split areca nuts.