LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 21 - September 27, 2026
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Tax Authorities Cannot Recover Pre-CIRP Dues Extinguished Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Aarem Insights Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd.) v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-VII & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 36803 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)527
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that tax authorities cannot continue recovery proceedings for pre-CIRP dues extinguished under an NCLT-approved Resolution Plan. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed a writ petition filed by Aarem Insights Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd., and directed the State tax authorities to refund the statutory pre-deposit of Rs. 31,99,174 made by the company for pursuing its MVAT appeal, along with applicable interest.
Crane Hiring Not Sale, No MVAT If Ownership And Control Remain With Owner: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sharma Heavy Lifter v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number : Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 529
The Bombay High Court has ruled that hiring out cranes does not amount to a sale for levy of Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) when ownership and effective control of the cranes remain with the owner. A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed an appeal filed by Sharma Heavy Lifter. It quashed the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's order holding the crane-hiring transactions liable to VAT and imposing interest and penalty.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : Sharma Export v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 4721 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 233
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to take measures to ensure that genuine exporters are not driven to “needless litigation” over inadvertent procedural lapses that can be rectified in accordance with law. “The DGFT authorities must take appropriate measures, whether by issuing comprehensive instructions or by suitable technological adjustments, to ensure that genuine exporters are not driven to needless litigation on account of inadvertent procedural lapses which can be rectified in accordance with law,” Justice Smita Das De observed.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To GST Rule Making Supplier Tax Payment A Condition For ITC
Case Title : Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13622/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1004
The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which makes payment of tax by the supplier a condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain held that the provision has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and that a recipient seeking ITC must establish, through cogent material, that the tax charged on the supply was actually deposited by the supplier.
Pre-Deposit For GST Appeal To Be Governed By Law Existing On SCN Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Krishan Pal Singh v. The Additional Commissioner Delhi West Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13927/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1009
The Delhi High Court has held that the requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act would be governed by the statutory provision in force on the date of issuance of the show cause notice (SCN). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition challenging a GST adjudication order concerning allegations that Petitioner had created and controlled 13 firms through which input tax credit (ITC) of over ₹30.50 crore was allegedly passed on.
Case Title : Vertilink Media Solutions Private Limited v. Anti Evasion Branch & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13077/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1018
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the ₹10.57 crore GST demand, holding that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Delhi GST authorities were not barred merely because the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had earlier initiated proceedings against the Petitioner concerning overlapping transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which seeks to prevent parallel proceedings by Central and State tax authorities, applies only where the proceedings concern the same subject matter.
CGST Act Permits Tax Liability To Be Determined After Death Of Person: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Jaiwanti v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7254/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1019
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act permits tax, interest, or penalty liability to be determined even after the death of the person against whom the underlying liability arises. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Vimal Kumar Yadav held that Section 93 of the CGST Act does not require adjudicatory proceedings to have commenced during the lifetime of the deceased for liability to be determined after his death.
Gujarat HC
Chewing Gum Not Taxable At 4% As 'Sweets And Sweetmeats': Gujarat High Court Holds 12.5% VAT Applies
Case Title : State of Gujarat v. Cad Mak Chew Foods
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 690 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 137
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that chewing gum cannot be classified as “sweets and sweetmeats” under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It held that the product is taxable at 12.5%, instead of the 4% rate applicable to sweets and sweetmeats. A bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Associated Distributors Ltd.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Case Title : Biostadt India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : WP(C ) No.2058/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 32
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that refunds of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess granted under the law prevailing at the time cannot be recovered merely because the Supreme Court later overruled that position in Unicorn Industries v. Union of India. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that once a subsequent judgment overrules an earlier decision on a point of law, the earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed on that basis.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Advises GST Department To Send SMS/Email Alerts For Hearing Dates
Case Title : Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited Through Its Director Pawan Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 15843 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 68
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has advised the GST Department to introduce SMS or email alerts to parties or their advocates about hearing dates, after noting that many taxpayers were approaching the court complaining that they had not been served with hearing notices. A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi made the suggestion while allowing a petition filed by Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Quashes ₹20 Lakh Penalty On Customs Broker, Finds No Proof Of Collusion
Case Title : M/s. Newport Shipping and Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I
Case Number : WP No. 522 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 276
The Madras High Court on 17 September set aside the Rs. 20 lakh penalty imposed on Newport Shipping and Logistics, holding that the material relied upon by the Customs authorities did not establish the broker's knowledge, conscious involvement or collusion in the attempted export of prohibited bull/ox meat. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that a Customs Broker cannot be held liable for abetment of the attempted export of prohibited goods merely on the basis of routine activities such as filing shipping bills, arranging containers and processing documents, unless there is material showing that the broker knowingly aided or colluded with the exporter.
Patna HC
Case Title : Moral Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5336 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 28
The Patna High Court has rejected a challenge to three CBIC circulars assigning “proper officer” functions to Central Tax officers under the GST law, agreeing with the Bombay High Court's reasoning on the issue. “An analysis of the Notification dated 19.06.2017 and the other two Circulars would lead this Court to agree with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,” a Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : National Fertilizers Limited v. State of Punjab & Others
Case Number : CWP-17189 of 1995
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 54
On 18 September, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an ammonia gas storage tank forming an integral part of a manufacturing plant cannot be subjected in its entirety to house tax by treating it as a “building”. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Rupinderjit Chahal passed the ruling while dealing with cross-petitions filed by National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) and the Municipal Council, Nangal over house tax imposed on an ammonia gas storage tank at NFL's fertiliser plant.
Case Title : Kuldeep Goyal v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CWP-31964-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 57
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man arrested by GST authorities after he appeared before them pursuant to the court's direction to cooperate with the investigation. A Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that Goyal had appeared before the authorities with the documents sought by them. The matter was already pending before the court and was listed for September 29, when the authorities were expected to report on the status of the investigation.
Sikkim HC
Sikkim High Court Sets Aside ₹37.93 Lakh Recovery Against Lupin Limited, Directs Fresh Review
Case Title : Lupin Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 24 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(SIK) 3
On 23 September, the Sikkim High Court set aside a Rs. 37.93 lakh recovery against Lupin Limited under the Budgetary Support Scheme, directing the tax authorities to reconsider the matter after examining the company's explanation and supporting documents. Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque found that the authorities had not properly considered Lupin's explanation on the ITC reflected in its GSTR-2A before concluding that it had received excess benefit under the scheme.
CESTAT
Case Title : Nichirin Imperial Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj & Other ICDs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50248 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 571
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that a bracket used in brake hose assemblies should be classified as a motor vehicle part based on its principal use for customs duty purposes. It also held that a connector specifically designed for automobile brake systems could not be classified as a generic plumbing fitting. A Bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Nichirin Imperial Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. against the customs duty demand arising from alleged misclassification of imported automobile components.
Case Title : Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41542 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 572
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that drawings and designs supplied free of cost by customers cannot be added to the assessable value of motor cabins merely because they were supplied free of cost. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed: “A free supply does not of itself displace the sole consideration condition. It displaces that condition only if it satisfies the conditions stated in Explanation 1 and in any one of its clauses, and whether it does is precisely the enquiry which was never undertaken.”
Tax On Services From Foreign Providers Based On Receipt Date, Not Payment Date: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Bay Forge Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41472 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 573
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that the rate of service tax applicable to services received from foreign service providers is determined by the date of receipt, and not the subsequent date of payment The later date of payment to the foreign service provider does not determine the applicable rate under the reverse charge mechanism. The bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed, “We accordingly do not follow Adani Enterprises, and hold that it is the date on which the service is received, not the date of payment, that governs.”
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Royalty Addition To CET Power Solutions' Import Value, Says Sale Nexus Needed
Case Title : M/s. CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40187 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 574
On 22 September, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the order adding royalty paid by CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. to its foreign collaborator to the assessable value of imported goods. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that royalty paid to a foreign collaborator cannot be added to the assessable value of imported goods merely because the imported components are used to manufacture finished products.
Case Title : Navnit Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, MUMBAI WEST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85320 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 575
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 September set aside a Rs. 17.39 crore service tax demand against Navnit Motors, an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover vehicles, on incentives, discounts and reimbursements received from vehicle manufacturers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the receipts could not be treated as consideration for a taxable service merely because Navnit Motors was required to meet sales targets or undertake related activities.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹42.78 Lakh Demand Against Belle Vue Clinic Over Expense Reimbursements
Case Title : M/s. Belle Vue Clinic v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.77175 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 576
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 September set aside the Rs. 42.78 lakh service tax demand against Belle Vue Clinic for the period October 2010 to March 2015. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that reimbursements towards proportionate common expenses could not be included in the taxable value of services before 14 May 2015, when the law was amended to specifically cover reimbursable expenditure.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹6.01 Crore Duty Demand Against Navayuga Engineering Over Helicopter Parts
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) v. Navayuga Engineering Company Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87625 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 577
On 22 September, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a Rs. 6.01 crore customs duty demand against Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, holding that helicopter parts used to transport personnel for infrastructure projects qualified as “capital goods” eligible for customs duty exemption. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban also held that Navayuga and Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited (KPCL) qualified as “group companies” under the Foreign Trade Policy, allowing the former to use KPCL's scripts.
Case Title : J.R. Smelters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40089/2014, 40161/2014, 40162/2014, 40163/2014, 40543/2014 and 40544/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 578
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that the classification of used railway rails depends on their condition and usability at the time of import, rather than simply on their original identity as railway rails. Where imported material was extensively rusted, cut, damaged and no longer fit for use as railway material, it was classifiable under Heading 7204 as ferrous waste and scrap, the tribunal ruled.
Case Title : Senior Manager (P & S), Western Railway Printing Press v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Mumbai Central CGST Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87656 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 579
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has held that railway-specific printed stationery made exclusively for Western Railway's own use was not liable to excise duty because the Revenue failed to establish that the material could be bought and sold in the market. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹95.93 lakh excise duty demand against the Western Railway Printing Press, along with interest and a penalty equal to the duty.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹23.17 Crore Demand Against Toyota, Rejects Reclassification Of 226 Parts
Case Title : M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40185 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 580
On 23 September, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a Rs. 23.17 crore customs duty demand against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. over the classification of 226 imported motor vehicle parts. It also held that the extended limitation period was unavailable and set aside the confiscation, Rs. 17 crore redemption fine and penalty imposed on the company.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹1.26 Lakh Demand Against Canbank Factors Over 'Bank Charges' Classification
Case Title : M/s. Canbank Factors Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41248 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 581
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 23 September set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,26,841 against Canbank Factors Limited, holding that the Department had failed to establish the taxable character of the disputed receipts. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that bank charges cannot be subjected to service tax merely because they are recorded under a ledger-head bearing that description, unless the Revenue establishes that the receipts represent consideration for taxable services.
Mandatory Type Testing Charges Includible In Excise Value Of ACSR Conductors: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Smita Conductor Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise-Daman
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 12755 of 2019- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 582
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 September held that mandatory type-testing charges collected from a buyer form part of the assessable value of ACSR conductors for central excise purposes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh upheld the central excise duty demand against Smita Conductors Ltd. on testing charges collected from Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. for type testing of ACSR conductors.
Case Title : Famous Steel v. Commissioner of Customs - Mundra Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10080 of 2024 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 583
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 September held that the Customs Department can demand differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act without first challenging an importer's self-assessment. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed an appeal filed by Famous Steel, observing that anti-dumping duty is a customs duty on which IGST is payable, while reducing the penalty imposed on the importer from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh.
NVOCC Cannot Charge Demurrage On Customs-Seized Goods Despite 60-Day SCMTR Rule: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Aegon Shipping India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 584
On 24 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai held that a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) acting as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) cannot charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by Customs, even if the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (SCMTR) permit recovery of detention charges after 60 days in specified circumstances.
Case Title : Wellknown Polyesters Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87731 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 585
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that thermic fluid used to initially charge and operate a Continuous Polycondensation (CP) plant qualifies as “capital goods” for customs duty exemption. “In view of the above discussion and analysis of the statutory provisions under FTP and the notification dated 14.09.2009 regarding the scope and coverage of 'capital goods', and the nature of thermic fluids viz., 'Dowtherm RP Heat Transfer Fluid' / 'Dowtherm A Heat Transfer Fluid', we are of the considered view that the impugned goods are covered under the definition of 'capital goods' and thus are eligible for availing exemption under the notification No. 104/2009-Customs dated 14.09.2009,” a Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban ruled.
Disposable Cuvettes Can Be Classified As Parts Of Diagnostic Equipment: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Roche Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Import Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40705 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 586
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that specially designed micro-cuvettes used with Roche Diagnostics India's Cobas c111 analyser are classifiable as parts of the diagnostic equipment. It ruled that the cuvettes' disposable nature did not by itself prevent such classification. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar held that the “Integra Microcuvetten, Micro Cuvette Segment” was not merely a plastic container for holding the sample.
Case Title : Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75930 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 587
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that licence fees and additional licence fees paid by Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited to the Government of Odisha do not constitute consideration for any taxable service. A coram comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by the state government undertaking. It set aside the service tax demand of ₹53.88 crore, along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds Road Construction Services Provided To West Bengal Govt Exempt From Service Tax
Case Title : Gouri Construction v. Commissioner of CGST & CX
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75835 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 587
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹54.91 lakh service tax demand against a road construction contractor, holding that the services provided to the West Bengal Government were exempt from service tax. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Gouri Construction, a proprietorship concern engaged in construction of roads.
GSTAT
Mismatch In ITC Claim And Supplier Credit Alone Cannot Prove Wrongful ITC : GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Peekay Industries v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
Case Number : APL/34/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 31
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has held that a difference between the input tax credit (ITC) claimed by a taxpayer in its GST return and the credit reflected in the supplier-linked GSTR-2A statement cannot, by itself, prove that the ITC was wrongly availed. It observed that a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, by itself, cannot establish that Input Tax Credit was wrongly claimed.
Case Title : Shree Contractor v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APPEAL NO: APL/12/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (TRV) 32
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has held that the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) is not a “local authority” under the CGST Act. It consequently ruled that works contract services supplied to KWA were taxable at 18% from January 1, 2022, instead of the 12% rate paid by the assessee. A coram of Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram held that KWA does not fall within any of the categories of “local authority” specified under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Metalloids India, Pathanamthitta v. The Commissioner of State Tax Keralam State, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : Appeal No: APL/27/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (TRV) 33
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has held that when a job worker returns goods to the principal after completing the job work, the transaction value is limited to the job-work charges and applicable duties. The value of the original goods subjected to job work cannot be included in the consignment value declared in the e-way bill.
E-Way Bill Generated After Detention Cannot Cure GST Violation: GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Heramb Enterprises v. C Pushpalatha, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : APL/142/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 34
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has dismissed an appeal against a penalty imposed on a taxpayer after GST authorities found that goods were being unloaded at a destination different from the one mentioned in the accompanying tax documents. The Tribunal held that the subsequent generation of an e-way bill and invoice after interception could not cure the violation under Section 129 of the CGST Act, as the required documents for the actual destination were not available when the vehicle was intercepted.
GSTAT Ernakulam Says ITC Eligibility Must Be Decided Under CGST Act, Sets Aside ₹7.07 Lakh Denial
Case Title : Augustan Textile Colours v. The Commissioner of State Tax, Keralam State, Thiruvananthapurm
Case Number : APPEAL NO: APL/23/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (EKM) 35
The Ernakulam Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 8 September held that refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground of ineligibility unless the credit is first disallowed through proceedings under the prescribed provisions of the GST law. A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram allowed the appeal filed by Augustan Textile Colours, a unit of Augustan Knitwear Pvt Ltd, and set aside the denial of Rs.7.07 lakh from its refund claim.
Case Title : Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Case Number : APL/11/RNC/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(RAN) 36
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ranchi, has held that an ITC reversal relating to an earlier tax period cannot automatically be deducted from the ITC availed during a refund period merely because the reversal was recorded during that period. The ruling concerned paragraph 43(c) of CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, which the Revenue relied on to argue that ITC reversed through GSTR-3B during the refund period could not be treated as ITC availed during that period.
Authority For Advance Ruling
GST Payable On Godown Rent Even For Exempt Agricultural Warehousing: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/35
On 21 September, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that rent paid for hiring godowns from unregistered persons is taxable under GST under reverse charge, even when the godowns are used exclusively for providing exempt storage and warehousing services for agricultural produce. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Vora and CGST Member Vishal Malani disposed of the application filed by Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, holding that the hiring of godowns and the subsequent warehousing services are separate supplies.