LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 07 - September 13, 2026
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA VS. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 47708/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order quashing GST proceedings involving a ₹363 crore demand against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the Union of India's special leave petition at the threshold. The High Court had held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd after its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd and Vodafone India Ltd were void ab initio, as the company had ceased to exist as a separate legal entity.
Case Title : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 37096 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 299
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger Bench the question of whether stamp duty authorities must have material showing fraudulent intention before questioning the value of a property under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed serious doubts about the three-Judge Bench ruling in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector of Stamps.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : M/s B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Case Number : SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 109 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 69
The Allahabad High Court on 25 August held that turnover cannot be enhanced merely on the ground of alleged suppression when the actual figure of suppression has not been identified, observing that even where the books of account are rejected, the enhancement must correspond to the suppression found during the survey. Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the revision filed by B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bareilly Division, holding that the enhancement of turnover was not justified in the absence of any specific figure of alleged suppression.
Customs Must Establish Foreign Origin Before Presuming Goods Were Smuggled: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lko. v. Anand Navalchand Pugaliya
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 71
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not shift to the person from whom goods are seized unless the customs authorities first establish that the goods are of foreign origin and were smuggled into India. it held that where nothing on the record connects the goods to smuggling, the presumption cannot be pressed into service at all.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lko. v. Anand Navalchand Pugaliya
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 71
The Allahabad High Court on 3 September held that an owner of seized goods does not discharge the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely by producing documents relating to his business generally, and must instead produce documents that specifically and traceably establish lawful acquisition of the seized goods. A Division Bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the burden shifted to the owner after the revenue satisfied the conditions for invoking Section 123, and restored the confiscation of three gold bars weighing 2,997 grams.
Case Title : Neelkanth Entrepreneurs Private Limited Thru. Its Director v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1024 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 72
The Allahabad High Court has held that scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is not a mandatory step before the department issues a show cause notice under Section 74A of the Act. It held that where the notice rests on independent verification and not merely on discrepancies in the assessee's own returns, the department need not first call for the assessee's explanation under Section 61.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow v. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 14 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 74
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that Customs authorities cannot deny provisional release of seized goods merely because an executive instruction places such goods outside the scope of provisional release. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 cannot dilute the scope of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, by prohibiting provisional release of goods notified under Section 123 of the Act.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad v. M/s Millennium Beer Industries Ltd. (now amalgamated with United Breweries Ltd.)
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 1 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 493
The Bombay High Court on 3 September dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of a Rs. 21.92 crore demand against Millennium Beer Industries Ltd., holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to raise a service tax demand without establishing fraud, collusion or suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax, and A Division Bench of Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Abasaheb D. Shinde also held that the Revenue cannot take different stands in substantially identical cases after accepting a decision in favour of another taxpayer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹21.93 Crore Stamp Duty Demand Against Wadhwa Constructions
Case Title : Wadhwa Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11115 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 494
The Bombay High Court on 7 September set aside a stamp duty demand of about Rs. 21.93 crore against Wadhwa Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited in connection with a Joint Development Agreement, holding that the valuation had wrongly taken into account development rights and benefits that did not exist on the date of the agreement. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Borkar set aside the valuation adopted by the Collector of Stamps and the appellate authority. He observed that “the expression 'market value' has to be applied to the property and rights which form the subject matter of the instrument on the relevant date.”
Stamp Duty Authority Need Not Wait For Flat Sales To Assess Development Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : VTP Homee Landmark (LLP) v. State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Revenue & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10120 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 501
The Bombay High Court has held that an agreed share of future sale proceeds under a development agreement can be taken into account while determining the market value of an instrument for stamp duty. The stamp authority does not have to wait for the project to be completed or for the flats to be sold before assessing the consideration agreed between the parties. Justice Amit Borkar relied on the court's earlier decision in Kolte Patil to reject the argument that future sale proceeds could not be treated as present consideration because the eventual sale price of the flats was unknown.
GST Introduced After Tender Cannot Be Treated As Included In Quoted Rates: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Indu Construction v. Nagpur Improvement Trust & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1867 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 505
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has ruled that a contractor cannot be denied GST reimbursement by relying on tender clauses requiring quoted rates to include “applicable taxes” when GST was not in existence when the tender was issued. A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode, relying on the tender clasues observed, "The taxes which are not recoverable by the Government from the contractors, on the date of tender, cannot be the basis for quoting the rates while submitting the bid."
Case Title : M/s SVS Aqua Technologies LLP v. Superintendent, Range IV, Division I (Shivajinagar), CGST Pune II Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11359 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 506
The Bombay High Court has held that a taxpayer's apprehension that GST authorities would effect recovery on the basis of audit findings communicated to it was misconceived. “The apprehension of the petitioner that the recovery will be effected on the basis of such information is misconceived,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil observed. The court added that the GST Department would have to take further action in accordance with the CGST Act.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (General), Air Cargo Complex v. J M Baxi & Co. & Ors.
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 36 & 39 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 508
The Bombay High Court has held that even a peripheral question touching the rate of customs duty can fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction. Such an appeal would lie directly before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeals against a CESTAT Mumbai order in favour of J M Baxi & Co. and others. The dispute concerned duty exemption on “stores” imported for salvage operations involving MSC Chitra.
Bombay High Court Allows Microsoft's Plea Against ₹1.40 Crore VAT, CST Interest Demand
Case Title : Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1885 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 510
The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over interest on VAT and CST payments. The court held that the company could not be treated as having delayed payment when it had paid tax within the time allowed for its six-monthly returns. “The present is a case where the tax has been paid in terms of the timeline prescribed by the Act and the rules as indicated earlier,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil ruled.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Directs Post-Decisional Hearing On ₹4.43 Crore ITC Blocking
Case Title : SPL Steel Processors Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Revenue, Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Office of Charge Officer, Salt Lake Charge & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.A. 17279 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 207
The Calcutta High Court on 1 September directed GST authorities to grant a post-decisional personal hearing to a company whose Electronic Credit Ledger was blocked to the extent of Rs. 4.43 crore, holding that it must be given an opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of its purchases and suppliers. Justice Smita Das De disposed of a writ petition filed by SPL Steel Processors Private Limited challenging the blocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger for the period from 1 February 2026 to 17 June 2026.
GST Notice To Deceased Invalid, Legal Heirs Must Be Separately Notified: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Gita Rani Pan v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.A. 10402 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 208
The Calcutta High Court on 27 August held that GST authorities cannot issue a show cause notice or determine tax liability against a deceased person, and must instead issue the notice to the deceased's legal representatives in their own names. Justice Smita Das De made the observation while quashing a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) against Late Haradhan Pan, who died on 20 May 2021, along with the consequential Order-in-Original and recovery notice.
Case Title : Shri Gopal Saha v. Union of India & Anr. with connected appeals including Shri Ajgar Seikh v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : APO 139 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 213
On Thursday, 10 September, the Calcutta High Court held that gold imported into India in violation of applicable import restrictions can be treated as “prohibited goods” under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, even though gold is not absolutely prohibited from being imported into the country. A Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt allowed the Customs Department's appeals and dismissed the appeals filed by Gopal Saha and Ajgar Seikh, setting aside the Single Judge's judgment and restoring the adjudication order imposing penalties on them.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Mohammad Sadiq v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2255/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 941
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Customs Department cannot retain seized goods indefinitely merely because adjudication proceedings have not been completed. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with two petitions seeking release of gold and gold jewellery detained by Customs at the Delhi airport. Petitioners contended that the goods had remained with Customs for several years without any order being passed and that no Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, had been issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2).
Case Title : Rohit Garg v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8829/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 942
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a batch of writ petitions challenging GST proceedings and penalty orders. The court held that the petitioners can raise their objections, including the alleged lack of competence of the officers who issued the show-cause notices, before the statutory appellate authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the objection regarding the competence of the officers did not constitute a “patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction” warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Customs Adjudication Limitation Clock Restarts After Interim Stay Ends: Delhi High Court
Case Title : GKEM International Pvt Ltd & Ors. Commissioner Of Customs ICD Ppg And Others ICDS
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5796/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 943
The Delhi High Court has held that where a pending court proceeding and an interim order prevent customs authorities from proceeding with adjudication, the limitation period prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, is to be reckoned from the date on which the circumstance contemplated under Section 28(9A) ceases to exist. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging a customs adjudication order that confirmed a demand of approximately ₹20.18 crore in differential customs duty.
Delhi High Court Declines Unconditional Release Of Gold, Cites Dispute Over Oral Show-Cause Notice
Case Title : Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 152/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 945
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the unconditional release of 290 grams of gold seized from a passenger at Delhi airport, holding that the absence of a written show-cause notice by itself could not warrant release when the Customs Department specifically claimed that an oral show-cause notice had been issued on the date of seizure. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition filed by Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum seeking release of eight gold bars detained by Customs authorities for Green Channel violation.
Case Title : Hospitech Management Consultants Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : SERTA 15/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 947
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹4.5 lakh penalty imposed on a consultancy firm for non-payment of service tax, holding that the default arose from a bona fide and reasonable belief regarding the taxability of its services and was not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and observed, “the non-payment of service tax by the Appellant for the relevant period cannot be viewed as a deliberate or contumacious default, as the assessee had acted under a bona fide and reasonable belief that the services rendered by it were not exigible to service tax.”
Delhi High Court Makes Biometric Aadhaar Authentication Mandatory For GST Registrations Nationwide
Case Title : Neha v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12210/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 948
The Delhi High Court has directed authorities across the country not to allow any GST registration without biometric-based Aadhaar authentication, taking note of the continuing misuse of PAN and Aadhaar details of innocent persons for obtaining fraudulent GST registrations. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain passed the direction on September 8 after taking note of data placed before it showing thousands of fraudulent GST registrations and tax evasion running into thousands of crores.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : M/s HD Associates v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/3066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 30
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that while the GST department can issue a consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years, it must determine the tax liability separately for each year and apply the provision applicable to that period. “The authorities are therefore required to determine the liability separately for each financial year, apply the provision applicable to that year, and examine the question of limitation and the ingredients necessary for invoking the respective provisions,” the court observed.
Gauhati High Court Directs Refund Of Cess Paid Under Mistake Of Law By Oil India And ONGC
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh v. M/s Oil India Limited
Case Number : C.Ex.App./1/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU)32
The Gauhati High Court on 27 August held that the Central Excise Department cannot retain Education Cess (EC) and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) paid under a mistake of law merely because the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. A Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Anjan Moni Kalita dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh, in matters concerning Oil India Limited and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC).
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar v. Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 510 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 119
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Revenue appeal against the Deputy Conservator of Forests in a ₹3.44-crore service tax dispute over permit fees, entry fees, camera fees, and other charges collected from visitors to Gir Forest. The court relied on an earlier ruling that had held that such fees cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services, as the Deputy Conservator of Forests was discharging sovereign functions while collecting them in his official capacity.
Case Title : Kanan International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 1116, 1117, 1119, 1128, 1129, 1147, 1148 and 1169 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 126
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a GST appeal cannot be rejected as time-barred by calculating limitation solely from the original adjudication order when the assessee had filed a rectification application within the prescribed period and the application was subsequently decided by the adjudicating authority. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed, “It would not be permissible to reject the appeal on the ground of limitation by computing the period from the original adjudication order when a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act has been filed within the prescribed period and has been duly considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority by a reasoned order, and the appeal against such order had thereafter been filed within the prescribed period calculated from the date of the rectification order.”
SEZ Units Cannot Be Denied Stamp Duty Exemption Due To Pre-Ordinance Lease: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : R/LPA No. 554 of 2014 in R/SCA No. 5775 of 2004
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 127
The Gujarat High Court on 2 September held that an SEZ unit cannot be denied exemption from stamp duty and registration fee merely because its lease deed was executed before the Gujarat Special Economic Zone Ordinance, 2004 came into force, where the investment was made on the basis of the State Government's earlier SEZ policy promising such fiscal incentives. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the State Government's appeal against an order directing refund of stamp duty and registration fee paid by Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Environmental Entity, Holds Effluent Treatment Exempt
Case Title : Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 17756 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 128
The Gujarat High Court has held that an environmental protection entity qualified for a nil GST rate on activities falling within charitable activities involving preservation of the environment. The court also found no deliberate intention to evade tax and quashed the show-cause notice issued by the GST authorities. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the petition filed by Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. and its co-petitioner.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Directs Authorities To Decide Contractor's ₹2.99 Crore GST Claims
Case Title : Shri Jinaraj and Co Registered v. The Executive Engineer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 103475 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 154
The Karnataka High Court on 29 August directed government authorities to consider and decide a civil contractor's claim for payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on road construction and improvement works. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that government authorities must examine a civil contractor's claim for payment of GST on road construction and improvement works by scrutinising the tender conditions, invoices, bills and payments to determine whether the GST component had already been paid.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Orders Enforcing 2% Cess On Cinema Tickets, Allows Multiplexes' Plea
Case Title : Multiplex Association of India v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WP 28571/2026
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a plea filed by the Multiplex Association of India and PVR INOX Limited against the enforcement of the 2% cess imposed on cinema tickets under the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024. Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad held that the measures seeking to operationalise and enforce the cess could not be sustained as the 2024 Act had not been brought into force through a valid commencement notification under Section 1(2).
Karnataka High Court Holds GST Payments Made During Investigation Were Not Voluntary, Orders Refund
Case Title : M/s Hukkeri Taluka Samagra v. ITS President
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 108177 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 157
The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST authorities to refund ₹53.97 lakh collected from a taxpayer during an investigation, holding that the payments could not be treated as voluntary payments under the GST law. Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that there was no material to show that the taxpayer had voluntarily ascertained his tax liability before making the payments. The Court also noted that no prior demand or assessment had been made before the payments and that the authorities had not issued the required DRC-04 acknowledgments.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds State Power To Levy ₹1,000 Per Seat For Permit Violations
Case Title : Smt. Nayaju Pote v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 32188 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 62
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25 August upheld the State Legislature's power to impose an additional levy on vehicles plying without a valid permit or in violation of permit conditions, holding that the levy is regulatory and compensatory rather than punitive. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed a challenge to Section 13(2)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, as substituted by the 2025 amendment. The provision imposes an additional levy of Rs. 1,000 per seat on specified passenger vehicles found operating without a valid permit or for a purpose contrary to the permit.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Says Appeal Against Fresh Assessment Order Statutorily Barred, Remands BHEL Matter
Case Title : M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : TC No. 16 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 258
The Madras High Court on 10 August remanded Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's (BHEL) tax matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala passed the order while disposing of a Tax Case Revision filed by BHEL against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The judges held: “The assessment orders in the instant case and the orders of the Appellate Authority are verbose and detailed. However, the fact remains that the exemption was claimed by the assessee in respect of inter-State sales during the transit of the goods, on the ground that the transactions involved specific boilers sold to its customers under a works contract and that the transfer falls within Section 6(2) of the CST Act”.
Meghalaya HC
Meghalaya High Court Sets Aside Service Tax Demand Over 8.5-Year Adjudication Delay
Case Title : Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme v/s Additional Director General
Case Number : WP (C ) No.377 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 5
The Meghalaya High Court has recently set aside a service tax demand against the Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme (ARGIS). It held that the Revenue authorities could not justify taking nearly 8.5 years to adjudicate the show-cause notice. The Division Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed that the delay was “undue and unexplained”. It held that the order passed after such a delay violated Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and was “arbitrary and bad in law”.
Patna HC
Case Title : M/s Nxtify Technologies Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 2517 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 25
The Patna High Court has recently ruled that a person whose bank account has been provisionally attached under the Customs Act must be given an opportunity of hearing before the attachment is extended. A hearing offered after the extension has already been ordered cannot cure the defect, the court held. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra made the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Nxtify Technologies Private Limited to the extent indicated in the judgment.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab & Haryana High Court Disposes Sony India Plea Against 2006 VAT Entry Substitution
Case Title : Sony India Private Limited v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Others
Case Number : CWP-26418-2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 50
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of a plea filed by Sony India Private Limited concerning its claim for a concessional VAT rate of 4% on Digital Still Image Cameras, holding that the company was not prejudiced by the notification it had challenged. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor observed that the expression “IT Products”, which formed the basis of Sony's claim for the concessional rate, continued to remain part of Entry No. 60 even after its amendment.
Telangana HC
Telangana High Court Quashes ₹52.39 Crore VAT Demand On TCS's Customised Software Services
Case Title : Tata Consultancy Services v. The Asst. Commissioner (CT) VMU-1, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad and 5 Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.12763 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 66
The Telangana High Court has set aside a ₹52.39 crore Value Added Tax (VAT) demand imposed on Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). It held that transactions involving the development of custom-made or customised software did not constitute a sale where TCS did not acquire ownership or title over the software. The Court found that there was no transfer of property in goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda passed the common order. It allowed the lead writ petition and the other writ petitions on similar lines.
Telangana High Court Upholds Gimpex's Target Plus Duty Exemption, Says Broad Nexus Sufficient
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Gimpex Limited
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL Nos.2, 26 & 27 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 68
The Telangana High Court on 11 August upheld the relief granted to Gimpex Limited, holding that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed that a strict product-to-product nexus between imported and exported goods was not required to claim duty exemption under the Target Plus Scheme. A broad nexus between the goods was sufficient.
CESTAT
Case Title : JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 41996 & 41997 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 547
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has allowed JSW Steel Ltd.'s claim for a ₹1.62 crore refund of excess export duty. It held that the limitation period could not be counted from the date of the original payment when the excess amount was identified only upon reassessment in 2015. The bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the additional amount paid by JSW Steel was never reflected in the shipping bills, Let Export Orders or any other contemporaneous assessment record.
No Separate DCGI Approval Needed For Service Tax Exemption On Drug Testing: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Consortium Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41928 & 41929 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE)548
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that Service Tax exemption for clinical testing of newly developed drugs cannot be denied merely because a Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) does not have a separate approval from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). The tribunal found that the drug Sponsors had obtained DCGI-approved permissions for the clinical trials. Consortium Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. (CCRP), acting as the CRO, conducted the clinical trials under written agreements with the Sponsors.
Renting Vacant Land Not Service Taxable Before July 1, 2010: CESTAT Delhi Denies Extended Limitation
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal v. M/s Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51919 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 549
The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that renting of vacant land was not taxable for service tax before July 1, 2010. It also held that one-time premium or salami received under a lease of immovable property was liable to service tax, but the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited without an intent to evade tax or positive evidence of suppression. The tribunal observed, “the immovable property including the vacant land is leviable to service tax with effect from 01.07.2010. Prior thereto renting of vacant land was not taxable.”
Case Title : M/s. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40693 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 550
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 September held that statutory dues owed to the Central Government, State Government or local authority, which are not included in a resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), stand extinguished and proceedings concerning such dues cannot be continued. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was dealing with a customs appeal filed by Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
Case Title : FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42475 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 552
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 September held that an authorised courier cannot be penalised merely because prohibited goods are found concealed in an export consignment, unless the Revenue establishes the courier's knowledge, participation or a specific act or omission connecting it with the attempted improper export. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. against penalties imposed on its predecessor TNT India Pvt. Ltd. after pseudoephedrine hydrochloride was discovered concealed inside garments forming part of an export consignment.
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Toyota's Classification Of Nine Imported Sensors, Sets Aside Reclassification
Case Title : Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40266, 40267 and 40268 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 553
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s classification of nine imported sensors as thermistors, gas-analysis apparatus, measuring or checking instruments, motor-vehicle parts and electrical apparatus. “The goods have to be classified in the condition in which they are imported, having regard to their objective characteristics and function,” the tribunal observed.
Aircraft Flown Commercially Without DGCA Approval Cannot Claim Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mega Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Preventive
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 540, 541 & 542 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 554
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that an aircraft imported duty-free for non-scheduled charter services cannot retain the exemption when it is commercially operated without the DGCA approval required under the exemption. A bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technicla Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with appeals filed by Mega Corporation Ltd., its Managing Director Kunal Lalani, and CEO Anil Kumar Soni.
Cost Of Tools, Dies Used To Make Auto Parts Must Be Amortized For Excise Duty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Mahindra CIE Automotive Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 52057 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 555
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the entire cost of tools and dies cannot be added to the assessable value of automobile parts. Only their amortized value can be included. “There cannot be any dispute that the final products cannot be manufactured without the tools and dies and, therefore, their value should included. However, they are not used only once but over and over again. Therefore, the cost of the tool or die has to be spread over all the goods manufactured using it. This is done through an accounting method known as amortization in which the total value of the tool or die is divided over the number of final goods which are likely to be products using it and proportionate value of the tools and dies is added to each good,” the tribunal observed.
Recovery Agent Services For Defaulted Loans Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41098 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 556
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 September held that services of recovery or collection agents used by a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) for recovering defaulted loans qualify as “input services” for claiming CENVAT credit. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed four appeals filed by TVS Credit Services Ltd., which had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services provided by recovery agents.
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Noida
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70366 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 557
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad on Thursday held that the 2016 amendment to the CENVAT credit reversal formula under Rule 6(3A) was clarificatory in nature. The amendment clarified that, for calculating the credit to be proportionately reversed, credit used exclusively for taxable services or dutiable goods is not to be included; only common CENVAT credit is relevant. The court observed that Notification No. 13/2016-CE (NT) dated March 1, 2016 substituted the Rule 6(3A) formula “in its entirety so as to bring about clarity in its interpretation”.
CESTAT Delhi Allows ₹6.51 Crore CENVAT Credit To Bharat Aluminium On Coal Supplier's Invoices
Case Title : Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51058 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 558
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently allowed Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) to claim CENVAT credit of ₹6.51 crore on supplementary invoices issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). The tribunal held that the invoices were eligible for credit because SECL's earlier short-payment of excise duty was not due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30139 of 2020 with ST/Cross/30114/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 559
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has ruled that meter-testing charges collected by an electricity distribution utility are naturally bundled with distribution of electricity and cannot be taxed separately. “We accordingly hold that meter-testing is ancillary and naturally bundled element of distribution of electricity. The activity takes its tax character from the principal service falling within Section 66D(k) of the Finance Act, 1994,” Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed.
CENVAT Credit Available On Depot Clearing And Forwarding Services: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Madras Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26436 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 560
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit is admissible on clearing and forwarding services provided at an assessee's depots. This includes receipt, unloading, storage, handling and loading of cement at depots from where the goods were subsequently sold. The tribunal observed, “Such services have a direct nexus with the appellant's business of manufacture and sale of cement and are eligible input services.”
Declared Goods Used To Conceal Undeclared Imports Can Be Confiscated: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Ashtvinayak and Company v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70317 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 561
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has ruled that declared goods can also be confiscated when they are used to conceal large quantities of undeclared goods. “It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the appellant was accompanied and used for concealment of large quantities of undeclared goods sought to be smuggled in to India by violating the provisions of Trade Markets and Intellectual Property Laws,” Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava observed.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GST Council Meeting Gets A New Date On Clash With BRICS Summit
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council Meeting has been postponed to October 7, 2026 owing to logistical clashes with the upcoming BRICS Summit. India is hosting the annual BRICS conference at New Delhi this year and discussions on economic balance amidst the West-Asia Crisis is expected. The GST Council met last time more than a year ago on September 3, 2025. In the last meeting, simplified slabs and a higher 40% slab for sin and luxury goods were recommended by the council.