LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Quarterly Digest: January - March, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
7 April 2026 12:00 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ola Parent ANI's Plea Against Delayed Service Tax Order
Case Title : ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 3185/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 33
The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pursue a statutory appeal against a service tax demand. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no valid ground was made out to disturb the High Court's decision. The court agreed that the writ petition was rightly not entertained.
Supreme Court Allows ₹2.9 Crore GST Refund On Coal To SAIL, Rejects Revenue Challenge
Case Title : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 38758/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 32
The Supreme Court on 23 January 2026 dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue, challenging a refund of about Rs. 2.9 crore granted to the Steel Authority of India's (SAIL) Bokaro plant in the initial years of the GST rollout. A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld a decision of the Jharkhand High Court that allowed the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess on coal, despite a gross delay of 676 days. The Bench observed it found “no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court."
Case Title : EverFlow PetroFils Limited & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84/2026
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a provision that allows tax authorities to raise demands of tax, interest, and penalty in cases of fraud or suppression, in situations where the department itself alleges that no taxable supply of goods or services ever took place. A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi took up the matter on January 30. The Bench directed the petitioners to serve a copy of the writ petition on the office of the Additional Solicitor General and said the ASG would assist the court on the next date of hearing.
Case Title : Prism Johnson Limited vs Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number : Diary No. 69736 of 2025
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz SC 44
The Supreme Court on Monday, issued notice and granted an interim stay on an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi against listed building materials company Prism Johnson Limited. The tribunal had upheld a service tax demand of about Rs 11.25 crore and denied CENVAT credit of around Rs 7.70 crore in related excise proceedings.
Case Title : The Value Added Tax Officer & Anr. vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1993 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 49
The Supreme Court of India has refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling that allowed a tax exemption claimed by Mitsubishi Corporation India for inter-state sales, rejecting the tax department's argument that the benefit was unavailable because an earlier sale of the goods was already exempt from tax. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said the case did not warrant interference. “We see no good reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,” the Court said while disposing of the appeal.
Case Title : Vedanta Limited (formerly known as Sesa Sterlite Limited/Sesa Goa Limited) vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Civil Appeal Diary No. 64232/2025
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice in a civil appeal filed by Vedanta Limited challenging a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which denied interest on a delayed refund of export duty, holding that statutory interest under the Customs Act becomes payable only after a valid refund application is filed. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan condoned the delay. It directed issuance of notice, returnable in six weeks. The order records: “Delay condoned. Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.”
Supreme Court Lets LG Electronics Withdraw Challenge To Rajasthan HC Entry Tax Ruling
Case Title : LG Electronics India Private Limited (now known as LG Electronics India Ltd) vs Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27669- 27672/2025
The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. to withdraw its Special Leave Petitions challenging a Rajasthan High Court ruling on entry tax, granting it liberty to seek a review before the High Court as the constitutional validity of the provision remains pending. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe recorded the submission that the vires of the provision had not been examined in the proceedings leading to the impugned judgment, since constitutional challenges are already pending before the Rajasthan High Court in separate writ petitions.
Case Title : PRANIJ HEIGHTS INDIA PVT LTD Vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS FOR ADMISSION
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3246/2026
The Supreme Court recently (February 6) issued notice in a challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that held that customs authorities were not required to communicate an extension granted for completing adjudication proceedings and directed that the matter be heard along with a pending appeal. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice in the special leave petition filed by Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. and directed that it be listed along with the pending SLP in Shri Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. that raises a similar question.
Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court Ruling On Duty Drawback For Unlocked Mobile Phones
Case Title : Union of India & Ors. vs. Avik Televentures Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Special leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.1037/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 52
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Customs, thereby letting stand a Delhi High Court ruling that unlocking or activating mobile phones prior to export does not disentitle exporters from claiming duty drawback. By an order dated January 30, 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, observing that it found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.”
Case Title : C L International & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner CGST (Delhi West) Commissionerate
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 55
The Supreme Court has recently declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court order declining to entertain writ petitions challenging show cause notices alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), holding that no good ground was made out for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. In an order dated January 30, 2026, a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan dismissed the special leave petitions arising from the Delhi High Court's judgment of December 5, 2025, which had relegated the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Torrent Power Ltd.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 13084/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 56
The Supreme Court has set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment that had quashed the transfer of ₹19.28 crore in GST refunds to the Consumer Welfare Fund and directed that the amount be refunded to Torrent Power Ltd. for adjustment in electricity tariff. Holding that such a mechanism was “not contemplated by Section 54 of the CGST Act and the Rules framed therein,” a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed the company to transfer the amount to the authorities concerned for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund within three months.
DEEC Licence Must Be Valid On Date Of Warehouse Clearance To Claim Customs Exemption: Supreme Court
Case Title : Bangalore Mono Filaments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), Chennai & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 877/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 62
The Supreme Court of India has recently reiterated that in the case of warehoused goods, customs duty liability arises on the date of actual clearance from the warehouse, and an importer cannot claim exemption under a DEEC advance licence if the licence has expired by then. Upholding the High Court's decision, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that entitlement to exemption must subsist on the date duty is assessed.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vs Jayanthah Trading Company
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 2168/2026
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against a ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, which held that Customs officers cannot alter the Free on Board (FOB) value agreed upon between a buyer and seller. A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed that the matter be heard along with a connected appeal.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX . & ORS. VS VIKARAM CEMENT
Case Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 710/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 82
Holding that the Centre's 2024 litigation policy applies even to pending appeals, the Supreme Court on February 5, 2026 dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax against Vikaram Cement, ruling that the Rs. 25.47 lakh tax demand involved fell well below the Rs. 2 crore monetary limit fixed under the June 26, 2024 circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Rejecting the State's contention that the circular would not apply to appeals already filed under the repealed Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed: “A plain reading of the above condition of the circular would make it explicitly clear that even in respect of pending appeals relating to CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, the monetary limit fixed would be applicable.”
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) Vs Inter Globe Aviation Limited Etc
Case Number : Diary No. 58086/2025 In Civil Appeal Nos. 7744-9457/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 83
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department against its earlier judgment affirming relief granted to InterGlobe Aviation Limited, which operates IndiGo, in a dispute concerning the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on re-import of aircraft and parts sent abroad for repairs. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan condoned the delay but declined to interfere with its earlier decision.
Voluntary Statements To Customs Officers Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Title : Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1232-1237 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 88
The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, constitute substantive evidence and can sustain a conviction if shown to be voluntary. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta reaffirmed the Gujarat High Court's judgment holding that, “Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 by duly authorized Customs Officers are admissible in evidence and do not attract the bar contained in Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided they are made voluntarily.”
Case Title : HAMDARD (WAKF) LABORATORIES VS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. COMMERCIAL
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2557-2578 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 90
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that “Sharbat Rooh Afza” manufactured by Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories is classifiable as a “fruit drink / processed fruit product” under Entry 103 of Schedule II Part A of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and not under the residuary entry taxable at 12.5%. A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan allowed the appeals and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments dated July 2, 2018 and August 3, 2022, which had upheld taxing the product under the residuary entry.
Fox Mandal & Company Takes ₹3.9 Crore Service Tax Dispute To Supreme Court
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : Diary No. 3350 of 2026
Fox Mandal & Company has moved the Supreme Court against a CESTAT order in a service tax case involving demands of about ₹3.9 crore against the law firm. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will hear the special leave petition on April 6 after the petitioner's counsel sought time to place an additional annexure relating to reconciliation issues raised in the plea.
Case Title : Carbon Resources Pvt. Limited vs Union of India
Case Number : DIARY NO. 8158/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the denial of utilisation or refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit (ITC) after the cess on coal was scrapped. The petition, filed by Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd., claims the change has left the company with around Rs 23 crore in compensation cess credit that has become unusable because no mechanism was provided to either utilise or refund it.
Case Title : ZOOMCAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8920-8921/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 113
The Supreme Court has recently permitted Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to file a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders arising from proceedings for the financial year 2019–20, after the Rajasthan High Court disposed of its writ petitions without granting liberty to pursue the appellate remedy. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with special leave petitions challenging the Rajasthan High Court's orders, which had declined to entertain Zoomcar's challenge to GST notifications extending the time limit for passing assessment orders and had disposed of the writ petitions along with the challenge to the consequent assessment orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024.
Writ Petition Against GST Show Cause Notice Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case Title : M/S TRILLION LEAD FACTORY PRIVATE LTD VS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7101/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 118
The Supreme Court on 27 February dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Trillion Lead Factory Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the Telangana High Court's refusal to interfere with a show cause notice proposing cancellation of its GST registration. A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held: “It is trite law that no writ lies against the issuance of a show cause notice, and such a writ petition would not be maintainable.”
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Ruhi Siraj Makda
Case Number : Diary No. 8941/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 120
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that directed the grant of an IGST refund to an exporter despite errors in GST returns. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while hearing the matter, refused to interfere with the High Court's decision but kept open the question regarding the applicability of the proviso to Rule 96 of the CGST Rules for consideration in an appropriate case.
Case Title : The State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : C.A. No. 3012-3026/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Bombay High Court's 2009 rulings that had granted electricity duty relief on captive power generation to industries, including Reliance Industries Ltd., for the period between 2000 and 2005. The appeals challenged the Bombay High Court judgments dated October 5, 2009, and November 7, 2009, which had quashed state notifications withdrawing exemption and allowed full electricity duty relief to industries for the intervening period.
Supreme Court Dismisses Fox Mandal's Appeal In ₹3.89 Crore Service Tax Case
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 134
The Supreme Court recently (March 25) dismissed an appeal filed by Fox Mandal and Company against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Noida, declining to interfere with the CESTAT order, which upheld service tax and CENVAT-related demands aggregating to about Rs. 3.89 crore. While refusing to interfere with the CESTAT judgment dated December 11, 2024, which had upheld substantial service tax demands and remanded certain issues for reconsideration, a bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that no error of law or fact was made out.
Case Title : M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax U.P. & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 5266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 135
The Supreme Court has directed Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs 3.5 crore in a GST dispute and ordered that no coercive action be taken against it for now. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the company's challenge to a November 3, 2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to entertain its writ petition. The company had earlier approached the High Court against assessment orders for 2021–22 and 2022–23, contending that they were passed ex parte without giving it access to key documents, including the SIB report.
Tax Exemptions Are 'Defeasible' Concessions, Not Enforceable Rights: Supreme Court
Case Title : State of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3012 - 3026 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 130
Holding that a tax exemption is only a “defeasible” concession, the Supreme Court has ruled that beneficiaries have no legally enforceable right to its continuation beyond the period of grant and that such benefits can be withdrawn by the State in public interest. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was allowing appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against a batch of industrial units and captive power producers, including Reliance Industries Ltd., challenging Bombay High Court judgments that had quashed notifications withdrawing electricity duty exemptions granted to industries generating power for captive use.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CESTAT Cannot Reject Taxpayer Appeals Below ₹2 Lakh On Monetary Limit Alone: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Shri Name Singh (Naim Singh) Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Kanpur
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 3 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL)11
The Allahabad High Court recently held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot mechanically reject a taxpayer's appeal on the ground that the amount involved is below ₹2 lakh. The Court said such appeals are maintainable as a rule and may be refused only in exceptional cases. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow Versus Shri Sarad Chand Agrahari @ Sharad Chand Agrahari
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 19 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 12
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently set aside a Customs tribunal order after finding that the tribunal failed to first examine whether the noticees (taxpayers) had actually sought cross-examination before holding that the adjudication proceedings stood vitiated for breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla ruled that the procedure under Section 138-B of the Customs Act, 1962, can be said to have been breached only if a specific request for cross-examination was made by the noticee and was then denied.
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that any money deposited by a taxpayer with the GST authorities, in the facts of the case, prior to filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, must be adjusted towards the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the appeal. In the present case, an interest liability of Rs 1.43 Crore was raised against Excel Vehicles, a unit of My Auto World Kanpur Private Limited, against which the taxpayer preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Allahabad High Court Declines To Quash Composite GST Notices To Multiple Assessees
Case Title : SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd and another Versus Union of India and 5 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 7515 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 15
The Allahabad High Court has recently declined to quash composite show cause notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central and Uttar Pradesh GST Acts to multiple assessees (taxpayers), holding that whether such clubbing is permissible is a mixed question of fact and law that must ordinarily be examined during statutory proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed, “Wherever it may be disputed that multiple noticees have been wrongly roped in together, that issue by very nature, would remain a mixed question of fact and law. Evidence would have to be led before any firm conclusion may be drawn, i.e. whether the dispute is such as may involve more than one noticee. It may normally be examined during statutory proceedings.”
“Access To Justice Cannot Be Held Hostage To Technology”: Allahabad High Court On Filing GST Appeals
Case Title : M/S. Ennbee Living Llp v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1235 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 16
The Allahabad High Court on 20 February addressed difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing appeals under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to technological barriers in the online system. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a case filed by Ennbee Living LLP, pertaining to the generation of a temporary id to file appeal under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Allahabad High Court Stays GST Order Confirming ₹13 Crore Tax Demand Against Dell India Arm
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 801 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 19
The Allahabad High Court has recently stayed the operation and effect of a GST demand order against Dell International Services India Private Limited, the Indian services arm of US technology major Dell, after recording its submission that a jurisdictional error had crept into the proceedings. Appearing for the company, counsel submitted that besides violation of principles of natural justice, the adjudicating authority had confirmed a higher demand than what was proposed in the show cause notice.
Case Title : Oppo Mobile India Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1351 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 20
The Allahabad High Court has recently granted interim protection to Oppo Mobile India Private Limited in its challenge to the validity of Section 15(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after an adjudication order confirmed a total tax demand of Rs 599.07 crore along with equivalent penalty and interest under Section 74 of the Act, according to the writ petition. The order in challenge dated December 12, 2025, confirmed demands of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Central Goods and Services Tax, and State Goods and Services Tax across multiple registrations of the company for financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24, the petition states.
Once Goods Found Of Indian Origin, Customs Seizure Arbitrary And Malafide: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : J.K. Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Smt. Jasvinderkaur Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. and Uttarakhand Lko. and 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 258 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 26
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has expressed surprise at the seizure and detention of areca nuts by the customs authority on the ground that they were of foreign origin despite one lab test indicating Indian origin and a government laboratory test failing to determine their origin. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla was dealing with a batch of writ petitions involving seizure of the goods by customs authorities and held: “In such a situation, when the goods have been identified as goods of Indian origin, the entire exercise of the customs authorities in seizing the goods and thereafter continuing to detain the said goods appears to be not just arbitrary but also malafide. It is astonishing to note that the goods were examined once again, that too, from a Government laboratory that could not ascertain the origin of the goods. Even after the second report has come to light, the authorities have continued to detain the goods without having any basis in law to do so.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
No DIN? RFN On GST Orders Enough To Prove Digital Signature: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Pedda Masthan Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 1363/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APHC) 14
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated its view that the presence of a system-generated Reference Number (RFN) on GST orders issued through the portal is sufficient to establish that the document has been digitally signed. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging GST assessment orders on the ground that they lacked physical signatures or a Document Identification Number (DIN).
Case Title : Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 21240/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 15
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 2 February held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be disallowed merely because essential commodities are sold at subsidised prices fixed by the State Government. It further held that by-products such as broken rice, bran and husk retained by millers during the milling of paddy do not constitute a taxable disposal or transfer attracting levy under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, challenging an assessment order passed for the period from June 2014 to March 2015.
Case Title : Fysolate Technologies v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : W.P (C)11150/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 16
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that where export is the direct result of a sale and the two form an integrated transaction that cannot be dissociated, such a sale is protected under Article 286 of the Constitution and cannot be subjected to State taxation. Explaining the law, the Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that a sale is “in the course of export” under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, when the sale itself occasions the export and the export is inextricably linked to the sale transaction.
No Separate GST On Chemicals Supplied Under Mud Engineering Contracts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Halliburton Offshore Services v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 14517/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 17
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that GST cannot be levied separately on mud engineering services and the supply of drilling chemicals, ruling that such contracts constitute a composite supply under the Goods and Services Tax law. A Division Bench comprising Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a writ petition filed by Halliburton Offshore Services Inc., setting aside orders passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, which had treated the transaction as involving separate taxable supplies.
Andhra Pradesh High Courts Rejects Sales Tax Exemption Claim Over Defective Form A-5
Case Title : M/s Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company v. State
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE Nos.66 AND 67 OF 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 18
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February, refused to interfere with orders withdrawing sales tax exemption on commission sales, holding that Form A-5 declarations not bearing the official seal of the assessing authority cannot be treated as valid under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. A dealer files Form A-5 to claim sales tax exemption on commission sales. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a tax revision case filed by Bommisetty Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy & Company and Bharathi Traders, which are registered dealers engaged in the purchase and sale of tamarind and jaggery.
No CST If State Tax Already Paid On Inter-State Movement Of Goods: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Gourav Kumar v. The CTO & Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 7053/2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 19
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 9 February held that once tax is levied and collected on goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act), no Central Sales Tax (CST) can be imposed on their inter-State movement, even if statutory declaration forms such as C-Forms or F-Forms are not furnished or are defective. A Division Bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar allowed a petition challenging the CST assessment for the assessment year 2004–05, filed by Gourav Kumar Anuj Kumar, a general merchant and commission agent based in Guntur district.
Case Title : A.P. United Forum for RTI Campaign Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WP(PIL) NO: 161 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 20
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently directed the State's Chief Secretary to constitute an Apex Committee to identify defaulters and recover unpaid conversion tax dues under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan ordered, “… we feel that steps have to be taken for ensuring recovery of the outstanding tax. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh to constitute an Apex Committee which would include the Principal Secretary of the Revenue department to draw a list of defaulters who have not paid the conversion tax based upon data from various Districts. Steps be then taken for recovering the tax by following the procedure as is otherwise prescribed under the Act of 2006 as also the Rules of 2018.”
Check-Posts Cannot Value or Confiscate Goods in Transit: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Golden Traders and Others v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 541/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 21
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities stationed at GST check-posts lack jurisdiction to examine the valuation of goods or to confiscate and levy penalties merely because the goods are in transit. The Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, observed that disputes relating to valuation and tax liability must be examined only by the jurisdictional assessing authority and not by proceedings initiated at the stage of interception under Sections 129 or 130 of the CGST Act. Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, empower tax authorities to detain and confiscate goods/conveyances in transit for violating GST laws.
Case Title : Balaji Ready Mix Concrete v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.11644 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 23
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that the value of materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient for manufacture of a product cannot be included in the taxable value under GST, setting aside a tax demand raised on a ready mix concrete supplier. A bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed that when components required for manufacturing a product are supplied free of cost, their value is not liable to tax.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Kishore Nichani Vs The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4211 OF 20252
CITATION : 2026 LLbiz HC(BOM) 57
The Bombay High Court has held that where a taxpayer has cleared the entire GST liability, including tax, interest and penalty, continuing cancellation of GST registration serves no purpose and causes undue prejudice to the taxpayer. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Kishore Nichani, who challenged the State Tax Officer's refusal to restore his GST registration, cancelled for non-filing of returns for more than six months.
Bombay High Court Reiterates That Service Tax Is Not Applicable On Legal Services
Case Title : Manisha Rajiv Shroff v. The Union of India and Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 1684 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 69
The Bombay High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed by an advocate, holding that legal services rendered by an advocate are exempted from levy of service tax. On 5 February, a Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the proceedings were squarely covered by the Court's earlier decision in Advocate Pooja Patil v. Deputy Commissioner. The Court observed: “8. The present proceedings also would stand covered by such notifications and the position in law as held by this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil (supra).”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Composite GST Notice Against ICAD School
Case Title : ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 736 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 67
The Bombay High Court on Friday set aside a composite show cause notice spanning five financial years, issued to ICAD School of Learning Private Limited, a JEE and NEET coaching centre that offers hostel and mess facilities. On 6 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta emphasised that consolidation defeats the statutory scheme of assessment and recovery for distinct financial years.
CERSAI-Registered Bank Dues Take Priority Over State Tax Demands: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bharat Co Operative Bank Mumbai Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax Mulund
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 172 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Bom) 71
The Bombay High Court on 28 January held that where a bank's security interest is registered with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) prior in time, its dues will have priority over tax demands raised by State authorities, including GST and MVAT dues. A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing two writ petitions filed by Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., challenging demand notices, prohibitory orders, and other communications issued by State tax authorities in respect of mortgaged properties.
CPC Summons Procedure Not Applicable to GST Inquiry; No 7-Day Notice Required: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 74
Interpreting Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Bombay High Court has held that the civil court summons procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be read into GST investigations and that tax authorities are not required to give seven days' prior notice before summoning a person for inquiry. A Division Bench of Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Y.G. Khobragade at the Aurangabad Bench dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition filed by Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, who sought Rs 10 lakh as compensation for alleged illegal detention by GST officers.
Bombay High Court Restores Trader's GST Registration After Defective 'Cyclostyled Notice'
Case Title : Om Enterprises Thr. Proprietor Mr. Nagesh Gopichand Motwani vs. The Union Of India Thr. Secretary And Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12760 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 75
The Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently restored the cancelled GST registration of a trader, observing that the grounds cited in the show‑cause notice and those relied upon in the cancellation order were materially different. A Bench of Justice R.G. Avachat and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar examined the effect of retrospective cancellation of GST registration and emphasised the need to issue a reasoned notice rather than a generic, template-based communication.
Bombay High Court Continues Stay On GST Notice Over 1/3rd Land Deduction Amid Pending Proceedings
Case Title : Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (A.E.), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34439 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 82
The Bombay High Court on 4 February, continued its interim order staying further action on a show cause notice issued to Khusharav Builders Pvt. Ltd. under Section 74 of the CGST/MGST Act, observing that the core issue is whether the Department had jurisdiction to issue the notice in light of earlier High Court rulings striking down the mandatory one-third land deduction under GST. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe on 6 January, granted interim relief and directed the respondents to file a reply affidavit within two weeks on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The Court ordered that, “in the meantime, no further action under the impugned show cause notice shall be taken.”
Case Title : Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Goods and Service Tax, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.13990 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 83
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has recently held that under the First Phase of the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fee Act, 2019, one hundred percent of undisputed tax must be paid and no waiver is available on such amount, dismissing a writ petition filed by a sugar manufacturing co-operative. A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar held, “for undisputed tax, amount to be paid is 100% of the amount in column B i.e. undisputed tax and the amount to be waived is nil.”
Case Title : Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 40917 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 85
Taking note that a director of Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. is undergoing treatment for cancer and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the Bombay High Court permitted videography of summons proceedings under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It also allowed his advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during recording of the statement.
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹133.60 Crore GST Penalty Each On Shemaroo Executives
Case Title : Amit Manilal Haria & Ors Vs The Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. & Anr
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 92
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed penalties of Rs.133.60 crore each imposed on the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer and Joint Managing Director of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., holding that the statutory requirements necessary to fasten personal GST liability were not satisfied. The Court found that the penalty provision invoked by the department could not be applied in the absence of proof that the officers had retained the benefit of the impugned transactions and that the transactions were conducted at their instance.
Case Title : Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 18259 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 96
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside a stamp duty demand of over Rs. 1 crore raised against Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities erred by adding the cost of constructing a Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) while recalculating the market value in a slum redevelopment project. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) acted arbitrarily in enhancing the market value by including the PTC construction cost and also ruled that revision proceedings under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act must be completed within six years.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹32 Crore GST Demand On Pidilite For Non-Supply Of Verification Reports
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court on 20 February set aside a GST demand exceeding Rs. 32 crore against Pidilite, holding that non-furnishing of verification reports relied upon in adjudication amounted to a clear breach of natural justice. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe quashed the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Bench observed: “Non furnishing of verification reports and no opportunity of a fair hearing on the same, in our opinion, certainly amounted to breach of the principles of natural justice, as behind the back of the Petitioner, no opinion could have been formed and expressed in the impugned order without the Petitioner being granted an opportunity to deal with the verification reports.”
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Year-Wise Assessment In GST, Limits Scope of Section 74 Notices
Case Title : Rainbow Greeners Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.7945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 99
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently, quashed a show cause notice issued against Rainbow Greeners Nagpur, under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the ground that it unlawfully clubbed five financial years in a single composite proceeding. A Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta wrote: “In the light of the statutory scheme, we find that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period which is attempted by the impugned Show Cause Notices assailed in the Petition.”
GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief, Including Stay On Recovery: Bombay High Court
Case Title : The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 4698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 103
The Bombay High Court has recently held that the GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief. This includes protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals. The Court said that any interpretation to the contrary would render the appellate remedy “illusory” and defeat legislative intent. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The bank had challenged recovery intimations and a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 issued while its appeal was pending before the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Upholds CESTAT Relief To KEC International In ₹4.42 Crore Excise Matter
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & ST CGST, Daman, Vapi v. KEC International Ltd.
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No 9 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 101
The Bombay High Court on 4 February dismissed a Central Excise Appeal filed by the Revenue against KEC International Ltd., holding that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting exemption benefits to the assessee. A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while hearing the appeal, held that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and concluded that there was substantial compliance with the exemption notifications; therefore, no interference was warranted.
Case Title : Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 102
Observing that extension of tax incentives granted to Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited involves a policy decision requiring inter-ministerial dialogue, the Bombay High Court has directed the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, and other concerned authorities to take a decision on the company's pending representation within two months. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Imagicaaworld Entertainment Limited, which operates the “Imagicaa” theme park and “Aquamagica” water park at Khalapur in Raigad district. The project had been recognised as a “Mega Project” under the State's Tourism Policy 2006.
Case Title : Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 100
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside orders passed by customs authorities determining the interest payable on an IGST refund to Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd., holding that the authorities failed to explain how the interest had been calculated under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe found that the impugned orders contained no reasoning showing that the statutory provision governing interest on delayed refunds had been applied.
Case Title : M/s. Vidarbha Beverages & Ors Vs Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 105
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, recently following a Gujarat High Court ruling, has held that assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot amounts to transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and does not constitute “supply of services” under the GST law, and therefore GST cannot be levied on such transactions. A division bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Vidarbha Beverages and its partners challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 demanding GST of Rs 59.40 lakh along with interest of Rs 40.98 lakh on the alleged non-payment of GST on the transfer of leasehold rights.
Case Title : Daulat Samirmal Mehta v. Assistant Director, DGGI & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 31 1 1 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 123
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that such liberty cannot be restricted merely on the basis of apprehensions that are not supported by material on record. The court permitted a businessman facing prosecution in a GST fraud case to travel overseas for business as well as personal reasons, observing that conditions requiring prior permission before traveling abroad are intended to ensure that the accused remains available for trial and does not evade the process of law and cannot be relied upon when the material on record does not indicate any such risk.
Cash Seizure Without 'Reason to Believe' Violates CGST Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Smruti Waghdhare v. Joint Director, DGGI & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 839 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 135
The Bombay High Court on 10 March quashed the seizure of Rs. 1 crore in cash by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) from Smruti Waghdhare, holding the action arbitrary and without authority under the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition challenging the seizure, under which Rs. 60 lakh was recovered from her premises and Rs. 40 lakh from her parents' residence during search operations.
Bombay High Court Stays Multiple GST Notices On Leasehold Transfers Until Supreme Court Ruling
Case Title : Swastik Processor Versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 42522 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 136
The Bombay High Court on 25 February granted interim protection to taxpayers facing GST proceedings on the assignment of leasehold rights, directing that recovery actions and adjudication of show cause notices be stayed until the Supreme Court of India decides the issue. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing multiple writ petitions filed by companies challenging GST demands on the transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in industrial plots and buildings, which the revenue authorities had treated as “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II(2) of the CGST Act.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Denying IGST Refund To Lubrizol, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title : Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 987 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 145
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of IGST on export of services, holding that the authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's contentions and the nature of the agreements between the parties. A Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the rejection of its refund claim of Rs 56,11,885 for July 2024 on the ground that the services provided were “intermediary services” and not export of services.
Case Title : Tata Motors Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra
Case Number : SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 81 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 149
The Bombay High Court has declined to answer questions of law on whether the hire-purchase premium collected on the sale of vehicles forms part of taxable turnover under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, in references arising from a dispute involving Tata Motors Ltd. after the company stated that it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. The court clarified that although a reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot formally be withdrawn at the instance of a party, the High Court can dispose of the reference by declining to answer the questions when the parties do not wish to pursue the matter.
Case Title : Bi-Chem India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 7331 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 150
The Bombay High Court has recently directed the Revenue to immediately restore the GST registration of Bi-Chem India Pvt. Ltd. after the department informed the court during the hearing that the suspension would be withdrawn and the registration made operational. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was dealing with a writ petition filed by the company questioning the suspension of its GST registration, along with a show cause notice dated February 18, 2026, a recovery notice, and the provisional attachment of its bank accounts issued earlier that month.
Case Title : Himtaj Ayurveda Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 159
The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 cannot be denied on mere technical grounds when a taxpayer is not at fault. A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe allowed a writ petition by Himtaj Ayurved Pvt. Ltd and directed the authorities to issue it a discharge certificate, emphasising that the scheme is a one-time measure aimed at resolving legacy disputes and ensuring disclosure of unpaid taxes.
Calcutta HC
Amicable Settlement In Commercial GST Dispute Allows Quashing of FIR: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Indian Compressors Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number : CRR 530 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 38
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed an FIR and released the frozen corporate bank accounts of Indian Compressors Ltd., clarifying that where a dispute is essentially commercial and private in nature, and the parties have voluntarily arrived at an amicable settlement, criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even for non-compoundable offences.
A Bench of Justice Uday Kumar noted: "Where the dispute is essentially commercial and private in character, and the parties have voluntarily reached an amicable settlement, the High Court, to secure the ends of justice and prevent an abuse of judicial process, shall exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences," the Bench stated.
Joint Commissioner's VAT Revision Cannot Be Revisited By Senior Officer: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Sales Tax Officer v. Sanjay Sur and Another
Case Number : R.V.W.O No.5 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 39
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that once an order is revised by a Joint Commissioner under Section 86 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, it cannot be subjected to a further suo motu revision under Section 85 by a Senior Joint Commissioner, as both officers act as delegates of the Commissioner and exercise the same revisional authority. A Bench of Justice Kausik Chanda, while dismissing a review petition filed by the West Bengal Tax Department, wrote: "Once an order has been subjected to revision under Section 86, it cannot thereafter be revised under Section 85 of the Act of 2003. Permitting such a course of action would result in an impermissible cycle of successive revisions", stated the bench.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Service Tax On C&F and Transport of Steel, Excludes Bending & Bundling
Case Title : Naresh Kumar & Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : CEXA 49 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 40
On 4 February, the Calcutta High Court held that service tax applies to “Clearing and Forwarding” (C&F) services and transport expenses for steel products. The Court clarified that activities such as transporting, storing, forwarding, and record-keeping fall within the scope of C&F services, while bending, bundling, and stock verification of goods do not. A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal by Naresh Kumar & Co., which claimed exemption from service tax on payments received for C&F services rendered to Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited (TISCO) and Tata Ryerson Ltd (TRL).
Superintendent Cannot Adjudicate Cases Involving Extended Limitation: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Nishant Jagaty & Anr. v. The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Rannge-III, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 20394 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 42
The Calcutta High Court on 2 February held that cases that invoke the extended period of limitation are expressly excluded from the adjudicatory powers of a Superintendent, even if the demand falls within their monetary limit. Justice Om Narayan Rai, allowed a writ petition filed by the partners of Radiant Security, challenging an order by which the Superintendent, CGST, demanded service tax of Rs. 72,000 along with education cess and secondary and higher secondary cess, and imposed penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : WPT No. 168 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 5
The Chhattisgarh High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Maa Shakambari Steel Ltd., allowing the company to seek protection from GST recovery proceedings by following a Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circular that applies in cases where the GST Appellate Tribunal is not yet operational. The matter came before Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, who was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the State tax authorities under Section 107(11) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, as well as a later order rejecting the company's rectification application under Section 161.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Naveen and Suraj Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
Case Number : W.P.(CRL) 1872/2024, CRL.M.A. 18198/2024.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 114
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with GST summons issued to two Panipat-based traders, holding that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are meant only to aid an inquiry and do not amount to the start of coercive proceedings. Dismissing the challenge, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that an attempt to quash summons at the inquiry stage is, in substance, an attempt to seek protection from arrest.
Delhi High Court Intervenes Against CESTAT Release Order On 53 Kgs Of Imported Gold
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs vs. Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 84/2025 & CM APPL. 33358/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 122
The Delhi High Court on 16 January 2026 issued an ad-interim order, effectively intervening against a CESTAT order which had granted the provisional release of gold to Shree Gold Art Pvt. Ltd. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that prima facie, the Tribunal order dated 17 March 2025, had failed to consider the fact and legal effect of 53 kilograms of imported gold being kept in unauthorised custody for four days, from 13 August 2020 to 17 August 2020.
2017 CBIC Circular On Proper Officers' Powers Under CGST Act Is Valid: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Lovelesh Singhal vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1426/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 128
The Delhi High Court upheld a 2017 Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) assigning functions to officers under the CGST Act, holding that it is legally valid when issued pursuant to a proposal by the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. In a judgement dated 2 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a challenge to the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017, while granting limited relief only by rescheduling the summons issued to the petitioner.
No Vested Right To Redeem Confiscated Prohibited Goods Under Customs Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Bhagwan Corporation v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD Patparganj
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18556/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 138
The Delhi High Court has recently held that redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not a vested or automatic right, particularly where the goods are prohibited for import. Dismissing the writ petition filed by an importer challenging the absolute confiscation of areca nuts, the division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Section 125(1) of the Customs Act employs the expression “may”, thereby conferring discretion upon the adjudicating authority to grant, or deny redemption, particularly in cases involving prohibited goods. The statute does not create an absolute or vested right to redemption.”
Case Title : Hira Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSAA 7/2026 & CM APPL. 7007/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 153
The Delhi High Court has recently held that once the market value of goods seized by the Customs is specified in a show cause notice, the burden lies on the one who recieved notice to disprove the valuation with cogent material, and a mere denial is insufficient to seek interference in appellate proceedings. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing an importer's appeal challenging concurrent findings of the Customs adjudicating authority and CESTAT, which had upheld confiscation and penalties in a case relating to smuggling of foreign-origin cigarettes.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Order For Failing To Consider IBC Moratorium Plea
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Office Of The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1988/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 154
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand order passed against a Finance company, holding that the tax authorities failed to consider the company's specific plea that proceedings were barred due to a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul quashed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, which had confirmed a demand of Rs. 67.5 lakh towards alleged ineligible input tax credit (ITC), along with interest and penalty.
Case Title : Maheshwar Flooring Industries Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2286/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 183
The Delhi High Court has recently held that an exporter cannot block the entry or processing of a return shipment merely by disowning the consignment, and that once the importer/exporter refuses to clear the goods, the statutory consequences under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 must follow. For context, Section 48 provides the procedure to be followed where the goods are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading.
Non-Declaration Of Gold At Green Channel Not Always Smuggling: Delhi High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2417/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 191
The Delhi High Court has recently held that in a case of non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel which does not amount to smuggling, absolute confiscation may be disproportionate and redemption on payment of fine may be permitted. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “The release is permitted only upon payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with applicable duty. The orders under challenge therefore do not condone the violation and instead calibrate the consequence.”
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. M/S Pro-Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : SERTA 12/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 220
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) permitting verification of certificates for claiming service tax exemption on services rendered to foreign embassies and diplomatic missions. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul held that no substantial question of law arose from the CESTAT's decision, which had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the exemption certificates submitted by the assessee.
Service Taxability Appeals Lie To Supreme Court, Not High Court: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi, South Commissionerate v. M/S Bureau Of Energy Efficiency
Case Number : SERTA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 221
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a service tax appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that questions relating to taxability fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, and can be examined only by the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “we have gone through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent in the matter of M/S Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd (referred supra). In the said matter, by relying on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Spicejet Ltd. (referred supra), it has been held that the issue in relation to taxability, an appeal before the High Court under Section 35G is not maintainable, and the only remedy available is an appeal to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”
Case Title : The Ferry International v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 723/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 222
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere presence of the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court, when the cause of action arises from summons and demands issued by authorities located outside Delhi. The Division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter challenging summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Zonal Unit at Ahmedabad and a consequential demand raised by customs authorities, on the ground that the petition was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court also held that it was not maintainable in the light of the earlier proceeding.
Case Title : Shri Himanshu Gupta v. The Commissioner Of Central Excise
Case Number : CEAC NO. 48/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 224
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of cross-examination under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not absolute, and may be lawfully denied in fact-specific circumstances, particularly where the witnesses are closely connected to the assessee and the allegations are supported by independent corroborative evidence. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, holding that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had erred in denying cross-examination of witnesses.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General v. M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 55/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 267
The Delhi High Court has upheld a CESTAT order restoring an entity's customs broker licence, holding that action based on a vague show cause notice cannot be sustained in law. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs challenging the CESTAT order which had set aside the revocation of the respondent's Customs Broker licence.
Case Title : Gautam Jain v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15864/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 273
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a jeweller challenging the penalty imposed on him in a gold smuggling case, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality with a co-accused. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority, which had imposed a penalty of ₹16 lakh on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title : Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5581/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 274
The Delhi High Court has held that show cause notices (SCNs) under the GST regime can cover multiple financial years, both under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul clarified that its earlier ruling in Ambika Traders is not confined to cases involving fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Case Title : Sandeep Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3207/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 279
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash a show cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the petitioner's plea regarding limitation must be decided by the adjudicating authority. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Once the petitioner has submitted his explanation on the issue of limitation based on the judgments referred above, it can be expected of the respondents to deal with the contentions of the petitioner.”
Case Title : Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3328/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 288
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations relating to non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) and other procedural lapses in GST proceedings are matters to be examined in statutory appeal and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Mere dissatisfaction with the manner in which the adjudicating authority has dealt with the record cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹45 Lakh GST Demand Against HUF After Revenue Confirms ITC Reversal
Case Title : Harsh Khanna And Sons HUF v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4900/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 306
The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand against a Hindu Undivided Family after revenue authorities confirmed before the Court that the disputed input tax credit had been reversed prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was hearing a writ petition challenging orders that had disallowed ITC and raised a demand of over Rs 45 lakh for the financial year 2018–19.
Case Title : Meever India Private Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16297/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 307
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a steel importer challenging the detention of its goods, holding that the mere issuance of a circular or decision by an authority located in Delhi does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul was dealing with a plea filed by a company engaged in the import of steel products, whose consignments had been detained at ports in Kolkata and Chennai due to rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Case Title : Lava International Ltd. v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10977/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 318
The Delhi High Court has held that mobile importers, including Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., are entitled to interest on refunds of excess customs duty paid by them. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple importers, including Jaina Mobile India, Intex Technologies, and UT Electronics (Petitioners), all of whom had been granted refunds of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) but were denied interest. However, no interest on refund was granted to Lava International, as there was no undue delay on part of the Department in re-assessing or processing the company's application.
Gauhati HC
GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Based On Investigative Dictation Alone: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Ankit Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/875/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 5
The Gauhati High Court on 17 February, held that cancellation of GST registration cannot be sustained when it is based on vague allegations and issued at the behest of the investigating wing, without independent application of mind by the proper officer. A Bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury allowed a writ petition was filed by Ankit Choudhary, sole proprietor of Ankit Enterprises, challenging a show cause notice, the subsequent order cancelling his GST registration, and the order rejecting his application for revocation of cancellation.
Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded Solely Based On Form 26AS Data Without Inquiry: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Customs v. M/s Numal Saikia
Case Number : C.Ex.App./7/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 8
The Gauhati High Court on 20 February, held that the Revenue Department cannot demand Service Tax from a taxpayer, solely on the basis of information provided in Form 26AS. The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan heard an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Dibrugarh, against a CESTAT Kolkata order that had set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 6,39,09,190 imposed on a contractor.
GST Summary Notice Cannot Replace Statutory Show Cause Notice: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Md. Shoriful Islam v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 471/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 6
The Gauhati High Court has held that a summary of a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under the GST law. Justice Soumitra Saikia quashed the order dated August 29, 2024, issued against the taxpayer, Md. Shoriful Islam, under the GST regime after observing that the tax authorities had only issued a summary of the show cause notice along with an attachment containing the determination of tax.
Gujarat HC
GST Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Limitation Period Cannot Be Condoned: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : M/s. Agrawal Enterprises v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 386 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 10
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal against a demand order on the ground of limitation, clarifying that a High Court cannot condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed by the statute. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed an appeal by M/S. Agarwal Enterprises and cautioned that taxpayers are required to remain vigilant and regularly verify orders uploaded on the GST portal.
GST Appeal Limitation Starts From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Order: Gujarat High Court
Recently, the Gujarat High Court clarified that when a rectification application is filed, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act runs from the date of disposal of the rectification application, not the original order. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted the delay in adjudication where a rectification application against an original order dated 12 August 2024 was filed on 5 November 2024, to be decided within three months. However, the rectification application was finally disposed of on 19 March 2025.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Order, Says Mere Reference To Submissions Is Not Consideration
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Ltd. vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 12708 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 14
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order directing recovery of deficit stamp duty and fine from Metalloys Recycling Ltd, holding that the authority failed to deal with the company's written submissions before passing the decision. Allowing the Special Civil Application, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the order dated May 24, 2023 passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Valsad was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
GST Appeal Cannot Be Entertained Beyond Statutory Limit Of 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Rajanish Industries (Prop. Shah Om Jitendrakumar) vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 624 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 16
The Gujarat High Court has held that delay in filing an appeal against cancellation of GST registration cannot be condoned beyond the statutory maximum period of 120 days (3+1 months) prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, in a judgment dated 22 January 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajesh Industries, a proprietorship firm, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to override legislative timelines.
Case Title : Niket Bipinbhai Patel Through Power Of Attorney Holder vs. Bipinbhai Madhavbhai PATEL vs. Assistant Commissioner (A.E.) CGST-Central Excise Vadodara-II Commissionerate
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 18068 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 18
The Gujarat High Court has held that Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which blocks input tax credit on goods or services used for construction of immovable property on one's own account, did not apply in a case where the taxpayer had only transferred leasehold rights and had undertaken no construction activity. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Act and directed the department to unblock Rs. 98,11,678 lying in the electronic credit ledger of a Non Resident Indian engaged in transfer of leasehold rights.
Re-Export Option Lapses If Redemption Fine Paid After 120 Days: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Goodwill Industries vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13305 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 19
The Gujarat High Court on 6 February, held that the 120-day timeline for payment of redemption fine under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, and failure to pay within this period renders the re-export option void. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the writ petition filed by Goodwill Industries, while directing the refund of Rs. 12 lakh redemption fine and retaining the Rs. 8 lakh penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Classification Of 'Mint Orange 2022' As Industrial Input Under VAT Act
Case Title : State of Gujarat Through The Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs. Gujarat Flavours Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 In R/Tax Appeal No. 598 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court has held that 'Mint Orange 2022' is classifiable as an industrial input under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, clarifying that household use does not prevent a product from being treated as an industrial input when its composition and primary use are industrial in nature. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Commercial Tax Department, holding that the product qualifies as an aromatic chemical and compound under Entry 226 of Schedule II, covered by Entry 42A relating to industrial inputs.
Order Passed In Fraud Proceedings Cannot Be Reclassified To Avail Amnesty Scheme: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : R B Pandey And Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central CGST and Central Excise Division
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 8054 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 21
The Gujarat High Court held that an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 involving allegations of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be converted into a non-fraud order under Section 73 merely to enable the taxpayer to claim relief under the GST Amnesty Scheme, in the absence of documentary evidence disproving such allegations. A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, by its order dated 13 February 2026, rejected the plea of R.B. Pandey and Sons, the taxpayer, who sought conversion of a GST demand of Rs. 79,34,968 from Section 74 to Section 73 of the CGST Act, and upheld the demand after finding that the taxpayer had failed to produce invoices, returns or other supporting records.
Case Title : Ashland India Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 23
The Gujarat High Court has restored over Rs.1.29 Crore rebate claim of a merchant exporter, holding that the absence of original ARE-1 forms cannot defeat a rebate claim when export and duty payment are otherwise verifiable. ARE-1 stands for Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export. It was a statutory export document under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It recorded details of manufacture, duty payment, and export. Under Rule 18, the original copy was ordinarily required to be filed along with a rebate claim.
Case Title : Balkrishna Industries Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1903 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 24
The Gujarat High Court has ordered refund of Rs. 18,00,140 collected as penalty from Balkrishna Industries Limited, holding that imposition of penalty merely because an e-way bill expired during transit was unsustainable in the facts of the case. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that “In wake of such undisputed fact, the imposition of harsh penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was uncalled for and is also beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.”
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside ₹30,000 Customs Penalty On Zaveri & Co. For Wrong Regulatory Action
Case Title : Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2415 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 28
The Gujarat High Court on 24 February set aside a penalty imposed on Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for alleged violations of warehousing regulations, holding that the customs authorities had initiated proceedings under the wrong regulatory framework and failed to provide the audit report that formed the basis of the action. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by the company challenging the penalty order dated 30 December 2025 issued by the Customs Department of India.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To R.R. Exports Against HSNSC Cess Registration
Case Title : M/S. R R EXPORTS THROUGH PARTNER MR. YOGESH J JOSHI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2567 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 27
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February granted interim relief to R.R. Exports after it challenged a requirement to register its unit, operating in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025 (HSNSCA). A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi issued notice in the case while recording that: “Prima facie, we find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner.”
Case Title : Rohitkumar Parsotambhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2111 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 30
The Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to an advocate who was arrested for allegedly filing GST returns for firms that are claimed to be non-existent, fake entities. Sanghani has been booked under Sections 132 (1)(b) (whoever issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax), and 132 (1) (c) (whoever avails input tax credit using the invoice or bill referred to in clause (b) or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Input Tax Credit Transfer On Company Amalgamation Not Restricted By State: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 32
The Gujarat High Court on 5 March held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the amalgamation of companies merely because the transferor and transferee entities are registered in different States. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi heard a petition filed by Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. challenging the refusal of GST authorities to allow the transfer of ITC following the amalgamation of Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt. Ltd., following a scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 14 November 2019.
Case Title : Ashland India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 35
The Gujarat High Court on 20 February, held that a rebate of central excise duty on exported goods cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses, such as non-submission of original ARE-1 documents, when the fact of export and payment of duty is otherwise established through supporting records. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Ashland India Private Limited, setting aside orders that had rejected the company's rebate claim of Rs. 1.29 crore.
Gujarat High Court Holds GST Order Against Pacific Cyber Technology Invalid For Overlooking Reply
Case Title : Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/SCA NO. 15064/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court on 5 February set aside a GST detention and demand order passed against Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd., observing that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the company regarding delay in movement of goods due to a technical fault in the vehicle. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held: “It appears that the appellate authority has not even remotely adverted to the explanation tendered by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the same.”
Case Title : Deep International & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16799 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the seizure of imported consignments declared as “industrial oil," holding that the product was most akin to Automotive Diesel Fuel (ADF) / High Flash High Speed Diesel (HFHSD), which are restricted commodities importable only through State Trading Enterprises under the import policy. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by importers, including Deep International (petitioner), challenging the seizure of consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To Export Units In Kandla SEZ From Cess Liability
Case Title : Esskay Niryat Corporation v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 2553 of 2026
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February, held that Esskay Niryat Corporation and RR Exports operating from the Kandla Special Economic Zone (SEZ), are protected from coercive action under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, while the matter is pending before the Court. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while hearing petitions filed by the two units, granted interim relief by staying recovery steps and issued notice to the Union Government.
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside GST Order After Taxpayer's Request For Personal Hearing Was Ignored
Case Title : M/s K D Engineers v. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 16344 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 41
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an adjudication order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that failure to grant a personal hearing despite specific requests vitiates the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was dealing with a writ petition filed by K.D. Engineers challenging an order-in-original dated August 20, 2025, and a consequential demand notice.
Case Title : Atlas Dye Chem Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1106 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 42
The Gujarat High Court has held that an amendment to a customs exemption notification under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme, which allowed installation of imported machinery in the importer's “factory or premises," will apply retrospectively, and exemption cannot be denied merely because the machinery was installed outside the factory. Allowing an importer's appeal, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the benefit earlier denied due to the absence of the word “premises” must be extended after the amendment made by substitution.
Case Title : Piyush Mafatlal Shah v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14978 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 45
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an individual taxpayer, holding that reopening of assessment was uncalled for where it was based on GST proceedings that had already been set aside by the appellate authority and where no independent material existed to indicate escapement of income. “Apart from this, there is no other material which is in possession of the respondent No.1, which could prove that there has been an escapement of income and hence the reopening was necessitated. The petitioner had supplied the Appellate Order passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, the respondent authority has failed to consider the same while passing the notice dated 29.06.2025 under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, in view of the categorical findings by the GST Appellate Authority in the order dated 29.03.2025, the reopening of the assessment was uncalled for,” the court said.
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹42 Crore GST ITC Fraud Case
Case Title : Keyur Dipakkumar Shah vs State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail - Before Chargesheet) No. 6472 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)46
The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Keyur Dipakkumar Shah, accused of allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) of around Rs 42 crore under GST laws, noting that he has no criminal antecedents and faces a maximum sentence of five years. “Without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail,” Justice Nikhil S. Kariel said while allowing his plea.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order For Rejecting Appeal Solely On Non-Appearance
Case Title : Sfc Global Commodity Private Limited versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 47
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a GST appellate order, holding that the Appellate Authority “has committed an illegality” by rejecting an appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance without examining the grounds raised in the appeal memo. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a writ petition filed by SFC Global Commodity Private Limited challenging the appellate order dated September 24, 2025.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 469 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHA)3
The Jharkhand High Court has permitted Ranchi-based manufacturer Ashirwad Food Industries to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal without making any additional pre-deposit, noting that ₹23.85 lakh had already been deposited at the first appellate stage.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar found “substance in the contention” of the petitioner and held: “Considering the deposit of Rs.23.85 lakhs already made at the first appellate stage, we agree that there would be no question of making any further pre-deposit for instituting an appeal against the impugned order dated 30.06.2025.”
Case Title : Tata Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4397 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Jhar) 4
The Jharkhand High Court has recently quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against Tata Chemicals Limited, Hindalco Industries Limited, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Tata Steel Limited and several other taxpayers, holding that reopening of completed VAT assessments beyond the statutory period is barred by limitation. A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the issue was already settled and that “the law is set at rest.”
GST Appeals Must Be Filed On Time, Writ Cannot Override Statutory Limitation: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title : M/s Nayan Enterprises v. Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(T) No. 4197 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR)5
The Jharkhand High Court on 16 March held that a party cannot bypass statutory limitation by approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Statutory appeals must be filed within the prescribed period. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nayan Enterprises challenging a GST adjudication order, noting that it had failed to show “sufficient cause” for not filing an appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Demand On Solar Plant For Lack of Personal Hearing, Remands Matter
Case Title : Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Limited vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 109976 of 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 12
The Karnataka High Court has held that the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on capital goods and input services used for setting up a captive solar power plant is unsustainable where the adjudicating authority acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, passed the order on 21 January 2026, setting aside the GST demand raised against Shri Keshav Cements and Infra Ltd. The Bench noted that once a binding advance ruling existed in favour of the taxpayer, any adverse order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing stood vitiated.
Service Tax On Ocean Freight In CIF Imports Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Konkan Specialty Poly v. Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 19754 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has held that service tax cannot be levied on ocean freight in imports made on a CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) basis, as such services fall outside the scope of the Finance Act, 1994. “The Act itself would be inapplicable to territories other than India and the Executive would not have the power to make rules for territories beyond India and where the events could be described to be extra territorial events i.e., service provided by a foreign exporter and a transport company which also enters into contract for transportation outside the territory of India, such extra territorial transactions cannot be the subject matter of a national law,” the court said.
Case Title : Huawei Technologies India Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2848 of 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 18
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a show cause notice issued to Huawei Technologies India Private Limited demanding Rs. 85.51 crore in Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), along with interest and penalty, on salaries paid to foreign national employees. Justice S R Krishna Kumar held that this was not a case of secondment at all, but one where Huawei India had a direct employer-employee relationship with the foreign nationals working for it.
Electronic Credit Ledger Cannot Be Blocked Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Jupiter Ventures v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3353 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 25
The Karnataka High Court on 25 February, held that the restriction imposed by blocking a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, cannot continue beyond one year, and any continuation of such blocking after the statutory period is illegal. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by Jupiter Ventures challenging the action of the tax authorities in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger on 21 November 2024. The Court observed: "Rule 86A(3) clearly provides that any restriction imposed under this provision shall cease to have effect after one year from the date of imposition."
Case Title : Medizen Labs Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Writ petition no. 5225 of 2026 (T-Res)
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz HC(KAR) 35
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte GST order passed against Medizen Labs Pvt. Ltd. after noting that the adjudicating authority issued the order without considering any reply from the taxpayer. The court observed that, in the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice before the matter is decided on merits. A single-judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by the bengaluru based company challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought refund of Rs 60,60,770, which had been recovered from its bank account pursuant to the impugned order.
Case Title : Additional Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL No. 101 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 42
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has ruled that the legality of search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, make the material collected during such proceedings inadmissible for initiating action under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved. The bench held that "The legality or otherwise of the search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, render the material gathered during such proceedings inadmissible for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 74, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved."
Case Title : M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2021 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 44
The Karnataka High Court on 9 February 2026 held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar read down Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST / KGST Rules to set aside the order denying ITC to Instakart Services Private Limited.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Quashes Panchayat Prosecution Over Tax Dues, Reiterates Recovery Must Fail First
Case Title : General Manager, GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Secretary, Mankada Grama Panchayat & Anr.
Case Number : CRL.MC NO. 6229 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 20
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a grama panchayat against the General Manager of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. over alleged non-payment of panchayat tax in respect of mobile towers, holding that prosecution under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act can be launched only after statutory recovery proceedings are first exhausted. A Single Bench of Justice C. S. Dias allowed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the General Manager, who was the first accused in a complaint pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna.
Kerala High Court Quashes Composite GST Notices Issued to Actor Honey Rose
Case Title : Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited v. State Of Kerala & Others (with connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) No. 15618 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 27
The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to set aside composite GST show cause notices and assessment orders issued to actor Honey Rose Varghese and several other taxpayers, holding that it was bound by earlier Division Bench rulings requiring separate proceedings for each assessment year. Allowing the batch of petitions, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that there was no stay on the earlier orders of the court and was therefore bound by it. “In this case, evidently, no stay is also obtained against the judgment in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) or Tharayil Medicals (supra). Therefore, I am bound to follow the observations and principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decisions."
Case Title : Authentic Metals v. Enforcement Officer & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 881 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 28
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that GST authorities cannot release seized goods during confiscation proceedings merely because the trader pays the fine proposed in a show cause notice. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ruled that Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act permits payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation only after a final confiscation order is passed. “Mere notice to initiate confiscation proceedings will not amount to authorisation for confiscation,” the court said.
Case Title : Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 21609 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 31
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a bona fide mistake committed by a taxpayer while filing revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms cannot justify denial of transitional Input Tax Credit, especially in the absence of any allegation of tax evasion. TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 are statutory forms under Section 140 of the CGST Act through which taxpayers carried forward eligible input tax credit from the pre-GST regime into GST.
Case Title : Yaser Arafat. K v The Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number : Crl. RP 162/ 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 33
The Kerala High Court has refused to discharge one of the accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that in the present case, statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with other materials constitute sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed to trial. “Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon, and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are matters to be decided after trial,” Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
GST Payable Separately On Municipal Works Contracts Unless Tender Includes It: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Ganga Constructions v. Assistant Executive Engineer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 4911 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 36
The Kerala High Court, on 12 February, held that contractors executing works for local self-government institutions are entitled to payment of GST over and above the contract value, and that such tax cannot be treated as included in the quoted rates unless the tender conditions expressly so provide. Harisankar V. Menon stated that once government circulars categorically mandate that tendered rates for public works are to be quoted exclusive of GST, the municipality cannot subsequently treat GST as included in the quoted contract value or seek recovery of amounts already paid on that basis.
Denial Of Input Tax Credit Limited To Depreciated Portion: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s The South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors. (and connected matters)
Case Number : WP(C) Nos. 23546 of 2024, 24348 of 2025 and 29087 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 46
The Kerala High Court on 18 February clarified that Section 16(3) of the CGST Act bars input tax credit only on the part of a capital good's tax component where depreciation is claimed, not on the whole tax component. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A quashed the show-cause notices issued to banking companies that had denied input tax credit on the entire tax component solely because depreciation was claimed on the unavailed portion.
GST Show Cause Notice Cannot Proceed On Preconceived Conclusion Of Liability: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association (KSSBCMA) v. Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 9108 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 56
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice issued to the Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association after finding that the notice was worded in a manner suggesting a pre-conceived conclusion on the petitioner's liability. The court held that a show cause notice can contain only a proposal based on the material on record and that a final conclusion can be reached only after considering the assessee's objections and documents.
Earthen Roofing Tiles By Khadi Board-Recognised Unit Qualify For VAT Exemption: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya v. State of Kerala
Case Number : OT.REV NO. 30 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 60
The Kerala High Court on 12 March held that earthen roofing tiles manufactured by a unit recognised and financed by the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board are eligible for tax exemption as “pottery” under the KVAT Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji set aside tax demands raised against Annamanada Kalimon Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., a cooperative society engaged in manufacturing clay products in Thrissur.
Madras HC
Police Security Services Exempt From Service Tax Prior To June 2012: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate vs. UOI
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos. 5591 & 5592 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 39
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea seeking service tax exemption for police guard charges and escort duties, holding that such activities carried out by the State Police do not fall within the service tax net prior to 1 June 2012. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer, in a judgment delivered on 12 December 2025, examined service tax liability by referring to the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 42
On Wednesday, the Madras High Court held that affiliation fees collected by universities from affiliated colleges are liable to GST and are not exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). A Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan delivered the ruling. The judges were hearing a writ petition filed by Bharathidasan University, challenging the GST demand notices issued for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-23.
Case Title : Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable and Educational Trust v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.1938 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 44
The Madras High Court recently ruled that a show cause notice under Section 74A of the GST law can be validly issued for F.Y. 2024-25 on the basis of discrepancies noticed in monthly returns, without awaiting the filing of the annual return. Section 74A of the GST Act, applicable from FY 2024-25 onwards, governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised.
Case Title : Dharmaraj vs. UOI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.No.2921 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.2370 and 3271 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 45
The Madras High Court has directed GST authorities to adjudicate a show cause notice proposing to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu but ordered that implementation of the assessment order shall remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. Justice C. Saravanan was hearing a petition challenging Show Cause Notice dated September 29, 2025. The notice proposes to levy GST on seigniorage/royalty fee payable to the State.
Duty-Free Import Benefits Denied Over Unauthorised Diversion, Poor Record-Keeping: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Regin.P
Case Number : C.M.A(MD)Nos.571, 572, 573 & 574 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 47
The Madras High Court on 10 February, held that duty-free import benefits under the Advance Authorisation Scheme can be denied when the importer diverts the goods into the domestic market without authorisation. A Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima allowed the Department's appeals, arising from a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Department) against the proprietor of Regin Agency, and Regin Exports.
Case Title : Virbac Animal Health India Pvt., Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number : WP No. 27739 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 56
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that differential customs duty voluntarily paid during a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation cannot be claimed as a refund. The Court further held that Notification No. 25/2019-Customs amended the applicable customs duty rate by treating shrimp larvae feed in both pellet and non-pellet form as attracting 5% basic customs duty. The notification cannot be applied retrospectively to imports made prior to its issuance.
No Service Tax Exemption Where Overriding Commission Is Received In INR: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Translanka Air Travels Pvt Ltd v. M/s. ETA Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 2873 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 59
The Madras High Court held that travel agents acting as General Sales Agents (GSAs) for foreign airlines cannot claim service tax exemption as an export of services when their overriding commission is received in Indian Rupees rather than convertible foreign exchange, even if the services are provided to foreign principals. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar held that exemption notifications are to be strictly construed, and the condition requiring receipt in foreign exchange is mandatory.
Affiliation Fees Collected By Universities From Colleges Liable To GST: Madras High Court
Case Title : Bharathidasan University v. The Joint Commissioner of GST
Case Number : W.P.(MD)Nos.27453
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 65
The Madras High Court has held that affiliation fees collected by universities from colleges are liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Court ruled that such services do not fall within the GST exemption for services relating to the admission of students or the conduct of examinations. The Division Bench comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan answered a reference arising from writ petitions filed by Bharathidasan University challenging GST notices issued by the State tax authorities.
Madras High Court Upholds Same-Month ISD Credit Rule Under CGST, Dismisses Reliance Jio's Challenge
Case Title : Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP No s .27038
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 69
The Madras High Court on 5 March upheld the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates that an Input Service Distributor (ISD) must allocate tax credits within the same month in which an invoice is received. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, challenging the provision governing the timing of distribution of Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹ 85 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title : Pravash Chandra Mishra v. Union of India (CGST)
Case Number : BLAPL No. 9957 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 8
The Orissa High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case, where he was alleged to have fraudulently availed Rs. 85 crores of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy was hearing the accused, who was being prosecuted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, under provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Knight Fly Boyz v. Officer of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : CWP-17615-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 5
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand orders raised against a manpower services firm, holding that its allegation that a Chartered Accountant misappropriated tax payments raised disputed questions of fact and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance to bypass the statutory appellate remedy available under the GST law. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri noted that the petitioner had itself authorised the Chartered Accountant to handle its GST compliance.
Case Title : Swastika Insulation through its Prop., Sh. Kunal Gupta vs. State of Punjab and others
Case Number : CWP 23675 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 7
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has restrained the Punjab tax department from taking coercive recovery action against a proprietorship firm over a legacy VAT demand, after the state told the court that the assessment record had been destroyed in a fire. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri recorded the State's submission that the assessment order against Swastika Insulation was not available with the department, as the record was “stated to have been burnt.”
Additional VAT Surcharge Valid Over Concessional Tax: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : M/s Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Haryana and Others
Case Number : VATAP-83-2018 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 11
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 27 February, held that an additional VAT surcharge under Section 7A can be levied over and above the concessional tax payable under Section 7 on sales of declared goods made to registered dealers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by Jyoti Strips Pvt. Ltd. challenging assessment and appellate orders passed under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Case Title : Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CWP-19113-2024 (with CM-2828-CWP-2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 14
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 26 February set aside a show cause notice seeking GST on tariff petition and licence fees collected by the Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, holding that these fees arise from statutory regulatory functions and are not in the course of business. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice, observing: “Learned counsel for respondents points out that review has been preferred against order dated…. However, it is conceded that there is no stay in the matter; in fact, notice has also not been issued therein.”
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : MR Traders v the Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4558/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that a GST appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond one additional month after the expiry of the three-month statutory period for filing an appeal, even if sufficient cause is shown. Setting out the law, the court ruled that Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits the Appellate Authority to condone delay only up to one month and that it can't take recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend that period further.
Case Title : Hazi A.p Bava and Company v. Commissioner, Central Excise And Goods And Service Tax
Case Number : D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 17744/ 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 7
The Rajasthan High Court has recently set aside a service tax demand raised nearly nine years after issuance of show cause notices, holding that revival of proceedings after prolonged administrative dormancy amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and defeats the statutory discipline prescribed under the Finance Act. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit quashed an order dated October 24, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Goods and Service Tax, Udaipur.
Case Title : J.K. Lakshmi Cement Limited v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6501/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 9
The Rajasthan High Court has recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against JK Lakshmi Cement Limited over alleged VAT liability arising from diesel supplied to transport and mining contractors, holding that the company must respond to the tax authorities and raise its objections during the ongoing assessment inquiry. The dispute arose after the Commercial Taxes Department conducted a survey and investigation into the operations of the cement manufacturer.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v Ceramic Tableware
Case Number : D.B. Custom Appeal No. 7/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that amendments in the Bill of Entry can be made even after a search is conducted, and such amendments cannot be refused merely because the error was detected by the department and not disclosed suo motu by the importer. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma said that the purpose of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to ensure proper assessment and that the power to allow amendment must be exercised reasonably.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title : Bajaj Auto Limited v. Commissioner of Uttarakhand, State GST & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 130 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 4
The Uttarakhand High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Bajaj Auto Limited challenging a GST adjudication order, holding that the requirement of pre-deposit for availing the appellate remedy cannot be a ground to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under the GST Act. The bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay noted that an effective alternative remedy of appeal was available against the impugned order and, in such circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted.
CESTAT
CESTAT Sets Aside Rejection Of Declared Import Value Over Inadmissible Statements, Emails
Case Title : Ajanta Overseas v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50374 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 46
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi Bench recently held that customs authorities cannot reject the declared value of imported furniture by relying on investigation statements and email printouts unless mandatory legal safeguards are followed. The coram comprised President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya. The tribunal said that statements recorded during an investigation do not automatically qualify as evidence and can be relied upon only after they pass the test of admissibility.
No Service Tax On Government-Supplied Water For Industrial Use: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Brahmani River Pellets v. Commissioner of GST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76822 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 48
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clarified that service tax is not leviable on water charges paid to the Government of Odisha for the supply of water drawn from a natural source for industrial purposes. The Tribunal ruled that such transactions amount to the supply of water and not the grant of a taxable licensing service. Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, delivered the ruling in an appeal filed by Brahmani River Pellets, a manufacturer of iron ore pellets operating a plant in Odisha.
Transfer of Development Rights Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Quashes ₹4.48 Crore Demand on Omaxe
Case Title : Omaxe Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50348 Of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 50
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has set aside a Rs 4.48 crore service tax demand against real estate developer Omaxe Limited, ruling that the transfer of development rights is not taxable as a service. Allowing the appeal, the tribunal relied on its earlier ruling in DLF Commercial Projects Corporation v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram. It held that “transfer of such land development rights is transfer of immovable property” under the General Clauses Act and therefore falls outside the service tax law.
Covid Customs Duty Exemption Covers Oxygen Concentrators, Not Just Ventilators: CESTAT, New Delhi
Case Title : Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51525 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 49
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that oxygen concentrators are eligible for exemption from customs duty under the Covid-19 relief notification issued in April 2020 and that the benefit cannot be restricted only to ventilators. Thr tribunal set aside a duty demand of Rs. 36.66 lakh raised on Aspen Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member C.J. Mathew observed that the notification granting a nil rate of duty on "artificial respiration or other therapeutic respiration apparatus (ventilators)" was intended to be read broadly, especially in the extraordinary circumstances prevailing at the onset of the pandemic.
Using Corporate Helicopter For Private Flights Breaches Customs Exemption: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 51
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the private and non-revenue use of a helicopter imported by a corporate entity defeats the basis of the customs duty exemption granted for non-scheduled passenger or charter services. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya examined a batch of cross-appeals filed by Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited (IMFA) and the Customs Department against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi.
Fixing Hearing Dates Without Virtual Links Violates Natural Justice: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Meera Bux Neelgar v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50063 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 52
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when an appellate authority fixes hearing dates without providing virtual hearing links, it violates the principles of natural justice and renders the opportunity of hearing a completely nugatory, hollow formality. A Bench comprising Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Meera Bux Neelgar against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jodhpur.
Customs Cannot Arrogate Powers Under FEMA To Confiscate Currency Or Travel Cards: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Salt Experiences & Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 51745 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 47
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs officers cannot arrogate powers under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, to confiscate currency or travel cards under the Customs Act, 1962. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member C J Mathew observed that while customs officers have the authority to intercept and seize currency at airports, they cannot adjudicate matters under the Customs Act for violations that fall strictly under FEMA.
HAL Fire Extinguishers In Su30MKI Jets Are Integral Aircraft Parts Exempt From Duty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Hal Transport Aircraft Division vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50304 of 2024 With Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50872 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 53
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fire extinguishers installed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in Su30MKI fighter jets qualify as integral aircraft parts and cannot be treated as stand-alone safety equipment to deny customs duty exemption. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, on 9 January 2026, set aside the differential customs duty demand of Rs. 92 lakh against HAL.
Service Tax Demand Based Solely On IT Returns Is Presumptive: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : MM Construction vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Thane
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86731 of 2023 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz
CESTAT (MUM) 54
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax demand based solely on differences between income tax and service tax returns is presumptive. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, on 7 January 2026, set aside a Rs. 7.05 crore service tax demand raised on MM Construction, a civil contractor engaged in road construction and drainage improvement works for municipal and government authorities.
Are Skin & Hair Care Treatments Taxable As Cosmetic Surgery? CESTAT Delhi Seeks Fresh Examination
Case Title : Trichoderm vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Service Tax and Central Tax Commissionerate, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.50829 of 2021 with Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No.50658 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 55
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 30 January, asked the lower authorities to re-examine whether skin and hair care treatments provided by a clinical establishment qualify as “Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery Services” and are therefore liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon was examining an appeal filed by Trichoderm, a Delhi-based clinical establishment operating under the brand name 'Medlinks'.
Coal Royalty Includible For Excise Valuation, Other Statutory Levies Excluded: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 56177 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 56
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited, holding that royalty collected on coal sales is includible in the assessable value for levy of central excise duty, but only for the normal period of limitation. The tribunal, however, set aside excise duty demands on other statutory levies and quashed the invocation of extended limitation, penalty and interest.
Case Title : Marie Products Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60693 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 60
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a central excise demand against a supari manufacturer, holding that alleged clandestine manufacture and removal could not be sustained in this case when the department relied only on electricity consumption.
A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao rejected the department's approach, observing: “We are unable to accept this submission of the department. In our view, all that the figures and calculations show is that if the production of supari in terms of electricity consumption has been as efficient during the entire period of dispute as it had been during the period 1 November 2017 to 9 November 2017, the production of supari would have been as calculated. However, the calculation does not establish that the production has, indeed, been so efficient throughout the period of dispute, and part of the supari so produced was clandestinely removed without paying duty.”
CESTAT Delhi Denies Customs Exemption For IMFA Helicopter Used In Non-Revenue Flights
Case Title : Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 61
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has reiterated that non-revenue flights cannot qualify as air transport services for customs duty exemption. “Flight service for no remuneration at all would not qualify to be considered as air transport service,” the tribunal noted, relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. while examining the use of an imported helicopter.
Electricity Supplied To State Board Not Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 587 of 2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 57
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a manufacturer is not entitled to CENVAT credit on fuel used to generate electricity that is wholly supplied to the State Electricity Board (SEB), even if an equivalent quantity of power is later received back through a synchronisation arrangement. A Bench of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed that since the electricity generated using the inputs was entirely supplied to the grid and not used in the factory, credit on such fuel was not admissible.
Bulk Imported Nutraceutical Ingredients Cannot Be Classified As "Edible Preparations": CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner, Customs New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51113 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 58
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that nutraceutical ingredients imported in bulk cannot be classified as “edible preparations” and therefore do not attract a higher customs duty. The Bench, comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 7 crore raised against Sundyota Numandis Probioceutical Private Limited on allegations of misclassification of imported nutraceutical ingredients.
CESTAT Allows Nil Basic Customs Duty On Sterling Silver Jewellery Imported From Thailand
Case Title : M/s. Shri Gopal Jewellers v. Commissioner of Customs– New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50045 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 59
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently allowed a jeweller to claim nil basic customs duty on sterling silver jewellery imported from Thailand, ruling that customs authorities were wrong to deny the benefit just because the importer did not provide some information. Nil basic customs duty refers to zero customs duty payable on certain imports under applicable trade agreements.
CESTAT Mumbai Remands CENVAT Credit Refund Claim Of Software Exporter For Fresh Adjudication
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Vs M/s Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86930 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 62
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside an order granting a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit to Physician Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to examine key factual issues bearing on the assessee's entitlement to CENVAT credit and its utilisation.
Forfeited Security Deposits And Tender Fee Do Not Attract Tax: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s RajComp Info Services Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissioner, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50096 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 63
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), Security Deposit (SD) and collection of tender fee do not attract service tax, as such amounts cannot be treated as consideration for a declared service under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, allowed the appeal filed by RajComp Info Services Limited, an undertaking, wholly owned by the Government of Rajasthan, against a service tax demand confirmed for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17.
Salaries And Consultancy Reimbursements To Foreign Joint Venture Not Taxable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40027 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 65
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February held that reimbursements made by an Indian company to its overseas joint venture do not constitute consideration for taxable services and are therefore not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order dropping the service tax demand against Kaar Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer), observing that no service provider–recipient relationship existed and that the entire activity took place in a non-taxable territory.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rs. 63.36 Lakh IGST Demand On Quality Systems, Confirms Tax At 12%
Case Title : QUALITY SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENTS P.LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-NHAVA SHEVA – V
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 87915 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 64
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February set aside a demand of Rs. 63.36 lakh towards differential IGST on parts of poultry-keeping machinery, holding that payment of GST at 12% by Quality Systems and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was proper in view of subsequent CBIC clarifications. A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the company against the Order-in-Original dated 12 September 2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Software Part Of Hardware Value, Reduces Duty Demand On Wipro
Case Title : M/s. Wipro (Infotech Group) v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40588 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 66
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of software supplied along with imported networking equipment by Wipro (Infotech Group) is includible in the assessable value of the hardware for the purpose of levying customs duty. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the demand to the normal period of limitation, while setting aside the extended period and penalties imposed on Wipro.
No Service Tax On Adda Fees Collected At Amritsar Bus Terminal: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Rohan And Rajdeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55340 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 67
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 February held that adda fees collected for the use of the Amritsar bus terminal are not liable to service tax. The Bench, comprising Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical), clarified that the entire bus-terminal constructed by the Appellant could not have been built to support the business of bus operators. Bus terminals are created as a public utility service and not as support services for bus operators; hence, service tax is not leviable under Business Support Services.
Case Title : Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Limited (RIDCOR) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51891 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 69
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside rejection of a Rs. 1.58 crore service tax refund to Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. (RIDCOR), holding that construction of public parking facilities and a government residential school was not a commercial activity. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, in its order dated 13 February 2026, held that parking projects constructed for municipal use fall within public functions under Article 243W of the Constitution.
Case Title : N. Sundar v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41441 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 68
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cashew Shell Liquid (CNSL) is eligible for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, as amended in 2006 and read with the Corrigendum dated February 28, 2006. The tribunal set aside a Rs. 3.22 lakh excise duty demand raised on the manufacturer for allegedly wrongfully availing SSI exemption on CNSL clearances.
Case Title : GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 42242 to 42245 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 70
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that companies cannot claim CENVAT credit on employee welfare services after April 1, 2011, following a statutory amendment that expressly excluded such benefits. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was deciding appeals filed by GE T&D India Ltd., a manufacturer of electrical and transmission equipment. The dispute covered April 2010 to March 2015.
CESTAT Sets Aside Penalty On Customs Broker, Says CHALR Violation Alone Insufficient
Case Title : Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs,
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58485 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 71
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a penalty imposed on a Customs Broker under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, holding that mere violation of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) cannot by itself justify penalty under the Act in the absence of specific allegations and material showing knowledge. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Cargo Placement & Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 58496 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 72
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently set aside penalties of Rs 25 lakh each imposed on Committed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Vikas Chaudhary, holding that statements recorded by customs officers cannot be treated as relevant evidence unless the mandatory procedure under the law is followed. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta, and Member P.V. Subba Rao held that the penalties were imposed solely on the basis of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without complying with Section 138B.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Against IBM India On Warranty Expense Reimbursements
Case Title : M/s. IBM India Private Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Large Taxpayers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26550 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 73
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February set aside service tax demands raised against IBM India Pvt. Ltd., holding that reimbursements received from overseas IBM entities towards warranty costs, in the absence of consideration for any service, cannot be taxed under “management, maintenance or repair” service. A Bench comprising Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) passed the order allowing the appeals filed by IBM India.
Case Title : Lombardini India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86157 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 75
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 5 February allowed Lombardini India to claim CENVAT credit of Rs. 56 lakhs in a case where it had entered into an agreement with Kohler India for certain services. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that once service tax has been collected by the service provider and accepted by the Department, the credit cannot be denied to the recipient. They held: “…once the tax liability has been discharged and accepted by the department, the consequential CENVAT credit cannot be denied at the recipient's side.”
CESTAT Kolkata Affirms CBEC Circular, Reiterates Sub-Contractor Independently Liable For Service Tax
Case Title : M/s. Rigtech Power v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76246 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 74
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 February clarified that after the issuance of CBEC Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23 August 2007, a sub-contractor is independently liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by it, even where the main contractor has already discharged the Service Tax liability on the same project. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, was examining the legality of invoking the extended period of limitation in a service tax demand raised against Rigtech Power, the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai Rules CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Service Tax Paid By Grindwell Norton Supplier
Case Title : GRINDWELL NORTON LTD VS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-THANE RURAL
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 86880 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 77
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,99,183 to Grindwell Norton Ltd., reiterating that once service tax has been paid by the service provider and accepted by the department, it cannot be questioned. A Single Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) passed the Final Order, noting that the disputed invoices were raised by the job worker under a belief that the services were taxable.
CESTAT New Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand Of Criticallog India, Holds BIS Not Required For Spare Parts
Case Title : Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50356 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 76
On Wednesday 18 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, set aside the duty demand, confiscation, and penalties that the authorities imposed on Criticallog India Pvt. Ltd. for imported “Memory” and “Power Supply” items. The Tribunal held that a BIS registration does not apply to spare parts imported for warranty replacement. A Bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, ruled that the appellate authority erred in treating the import as misdeclared and clarified that spare parts do not require BIS registration.
CESTAT Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation, Cites Contradictory Findings
Case Title : Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Case Number : Final Order No. A/85317/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 78
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai recently set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the adjudicating authority recorded contradictory findings. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Fairdeal Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.
No Service Tax Payable On Overseas Film Shooting Expenses Under Reverse Charge: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75875 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 79
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed the appeal filed by Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd., holding that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on expenses incurred in foreign currency for the shooting of films and allied activities carried outside India. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, observed that the department had raised the demand merely on the basis of figures reflected in the balance sheet under the head "expenditure in foreign currency" without identifying or classifying the specific taxable service.
Case Title : Airport Authority of India Vs Commissioner of CGST- Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.52465 Of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 80
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 18 February, held that Service Tax is not leviable on Route Navigation Facility Charges (RNFC) collected by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), as such services are not rendered entirely within the airport or civil enclave, as required under Section 65(105)(zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994. A Division Bench Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing AAI's appeal against confirmation of service tax demand on RNFC, Terminal Navigation Landing Charges (TNLC) and certain miscellaneous income.
Allegations Of Clandestine Removal Cannot Rely On Unauthenticated Evidence: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41116 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 81
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained in the absence of legally admissible electronic evidence and a complete chain of corroborative material. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao on 4 February 4, allowed the appeals filed by the Umashankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., its Managing Director and Manager, and quashed the duty demand of Rs. 2.79 crore, along with equal penalty and consequential personal penalties.
Incorrect Tariff Classification Not Enough To Invoke Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s iValue Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50629 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 82
On 23 February, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods in a Bill of Entry cannot automatically lead to invocation of the extended period of limitation, confiscation of goods, or imposition of penalty in the absence of intent to evade duty. A Bench comprising the President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao, partly allowed the appeal by iValue Infosolutions Private Limited, and set aside the demand raised for the extended period, along with confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Value Enhancement Based Solely On DRI Alert In Fabric Import Case
Case Title : Kumar Mahendra Exim Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86769 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 83
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February set aside the enhancement of value of imported knitted fabrics, holding that customs authorities cannot reject the declared transaction value solely on the basis of a DRI Alert and NIDB data without following the procedure prescribed under law. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban, was hearing an appeal filed by Kumar Mahendra Exim against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the re-determination of the value of the imported goods.
No Service Tax On Exempt Road, Canal Works Based Solely On TDS Deduction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Shailja Construction v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70031 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 84
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 February held that mere deduction of TDS and reflection of receipts in Form 26AS cannot determine service tax liability when the underlying activity, i.e., construction of roads and canals for Government authorities, is expressly exempt under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary allowed an appeal by Shailja Construction, noting that the entire demand had been raised mechanically on the basis of Form 26AS entries and TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, without examining the actual nature of the services rendered.
Case Title : Price Water House Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75239 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 85
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed in a case that CENVAT credit/refund could not have been denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed. The bench consists of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided a batch of service tax appeals filed by Price Waterhouse Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd., challenging the denial of CENVAT credit and refund on multiple grounds mostly technical irregularities.
Shifting Materials Within Factory Not Taxable As “Cargo Handling Service”: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Eastern Transport Agency v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70245 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 86
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 February, held that shifting and transportation of materials within factory premises does not fall under the category of "Cargo Handling Service" and therefore no service tax is payable on such activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Eastern Transport Agency (taxpayer) against an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.28 crore, along with interest and penalties, for the period October 2006 to March 2011.
Service Tax Leviable On Infrastructure Support To TCS, Educational Training Exempt: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76030 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 87
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 February, confirmed service tax liability on infrastructure and allied facilities provided to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) under “Business Support Service”, while setting aside the entire demand for training and educational activities under “Management or Business Consultancy Service”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, decided the appeal filed by Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) (appellant), a charitable educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, against a service tax demand of Rs. 2.38 crore confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar.
Customs House Agent Services To Foreign Clients Are Export, Service Tax Not Payable: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Ceva Freight India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75990 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 88
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that Customs House Agent (CHA) services rendered by an international freight forwarder to overseas customers constitute “export of service” and are not liable to service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan heard cross appeals arising from an order passed against Ceva Freight India Pvt. Ltd (taxpayer), an international freight forwarder engaged in the transportation of cargo for inbound and outbound shipments.
Case Title : T T Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70574 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 89
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that, in the facts of the case, an amount paid under protest during investigation, before any adjudication or confirmed demand, cannot be treated as “duty” but only as a deposit. It ruled that interest on such a refund is payable at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The order was passed by Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary while allowing the appeal filed by T T Limited, a 100% export-oriented unit engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn. The dispute concerned interest on the refund of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles).
Housekeeping, Manpower Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit Post-2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Cetex Petrochemical Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40527 to 40529 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 90
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 February held that CENVAT credit on services such as housekeeping, gardening, pest control, manpower supply, and business membership cannot be denied merely due to the post-2011 amendment, so long as the services have a clear connection with manufacturing or business activity. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was hearing an appeal filed by Cetax Petrochemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of petrochemical products, against the partial denial of CENVAT credit for the period March 2014 to March 2015.
Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Machines Imported Pre-2012 Not Confiscable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Jaya Trading Company v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41557 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 91
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 February held that second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported before June 2012 were freely importable and not liable to confiscation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao were hearing an appeal by Jaya Trading Company. The members examined whether the rejection of the importer's appeal on limitation was legally sustainable and whether second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines imported prior to 5 June 2012 could be treated as restricted goods, thereby justifying confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act.
Bought-Out Optional Plywood Tops Value Not Includible In Excise Duty on Folding Cots: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shree Durga Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 76598 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 92
In partial relief to Shree Durga Industry, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that while fabrication of steel folding cots amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, the value of optional plywood tops procured from the open market cannot be added to the assessable value for levy of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing appeals filed by Shree Durga Industry and its partner Goldi Sethi against an order confirming a demand of Rs 3,32,10,665 in excise duty along with interest and penalties for the period 2011–12 to 2014–15 (up to May 2015).
Ready Rotis Classifiable as Bread, Not Ready-To-Eat Food; CESTAT Grants Nil Excise Duty
Case Title : Ready Roti India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50670 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 93
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that “Ready Roti/Halka Fulka” manufactured by Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. is classifiable as bread and not as packaged or instant food, and is therefore chargeable to a nil rate of excise duty. The bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with an appeal against an order upholding excise duty demand, interest and penalty on the allegation that the appellant was manufacturing ready-to-eat packaged food without registration or payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.81 Crore Service Tax Demand on CII For Overseas Exhibitions
Case Title : Confederation of Indian Industry v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50606 Of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 94
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that fees collected by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) from its members for facilitating participation in overseas business exhibitions are not liable to service tax under the category of “Business Exhibition Service”. The bench consists of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, was hearing an appeal filed by Confederation of Indian Industry (appellant) against an order confirming a service tax demand of over Rs. 1.81 crore along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Quashes Rs 3.47 Crore Duty Demand On Myntra Jabong, Says No Wilful Suppression
Case Title : Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55846 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 95
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Friday set aside a Rs 3.47 crore customs duty demand against Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked in a classification dispute. Allowing the appeal, The Tribunal noted that the company had deposited the entire differential duty along with interest before issuance of the show cause notice and that its failure to mention the zipper length in the imported jackets did not amount to wilful suppression with intent to evade duty.
Case Title : Gayatri Engineering v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : EXCISE Appeal No. 11170 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that MS frame parts, gland plates and MS tanks manufactured as per buyer-specific drawings for use in transformers cannot be treated as general articles of iron and steel. The Tribunal set aside the demand for differential excise duty of Rs.3.69 lakhs raised against Gayatri Engineering, along with interest and penalty.
Service Tax Is Leviable On Repair Services Provided To Kolkata Metro: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s. PPS International v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51505 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 96
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 February, held that repair and maintenance services rendered to the Kolkata Metro Railway are not eligible for tax exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta, focussed on whether such services could be treated as exempt railway-related works and whether the Department was justified in invoking the extended period to confirm the service tax demand.
No Excise Duty On Dolochar Generated During Sponge Iron Production: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75666 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 98
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 'dolochar' generated during the manufacture of sponge iron is an inevitable waste and not a manufactured excisable product. Therefore no central excise duty is payable on its clearance. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd., challenging the confirmation of excise duty along with interest and equal penalty imposed on the sale of dolochar.
No Bar On CENVAT Credit Where Supplementary Invoice Is Not Linked To Suppression: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr., CGST & CX, Rourkela Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.75703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 99
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 February, allowed an appeal by Agrasen Sponge Pvt. Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit claimed on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) is admissible where the additional duty arose due to an interpretational dispute and not on account of suppression or fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar, which had upheld the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 23.36 lakh availed by the appellant during April 2016 to March 2017.
CESTAT Sets Aside Rs 24.96 Lakh Service Tax Demand Against Contractor Based Only On TDS Statement
Case Title : M/s. Manoj Kumar Singh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75643 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 100
The Kolkata Bench of CESTAT has set aside a service tax demand of Rs 24.96 lakh against a Chakradharpur contractor, holding that his work for the Railways, exempt subcontracted projects, and construction of single residential units did not attract service tax. The bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that a demand cannot stand if it is based solely on Form 26AS data without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry.
Case Title : R. Rajinikanth v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40776 & 40777 of2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 102
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai on Wednesday set aside a service tax demand of about Rs 56.84 lakh against veteran Tamil actor Rajinikanth, holding that renting a building for use as a hotel is excluded from service tax under the Finance Act even if the premises contain facilities such as a restaurant, banquet hall, conference hall, bar, and health club. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed, "Their presence enhances the commercial viability of the hotel, commensurate with its category or class. While such facilities may, in certain cases, be operated by entities other than the principal lessee, they continue to function predominantly for the benefit and use of hotel guests. Importantly, the existence of the impugned facilities has not been shown to results in a bifurcation of the use of the premises nor supports the inference that the property is partly deployed for independent or distinct commercial activities. They are hence a part of the hotel."
Customs Can Levy Duty On Modular Kitchens, Not Re-Determine Value Arbitrarily: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Aran Kitchen World (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40047 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 101
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs duty is applicable to imports of modular kitchens in CKD/SKD condition, but the declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of a weight-based comparison or administrative valuation guidelines. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, examined whether the Department was justified in rejecting the declared transaction value of modular kitchen imports solely on the basis of derived weight-based comparisons and administrative valuation benchmarks, despite the absence of evidence that the relationship between the importer and its foreign joint venture partner had influenced the price.
CESTAT Allows Perrigo Lab's ₹44.72 Lakh CENVAT Credit Refund Denied Over Clerical Invoice Error
Case Title : Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Final Order No.: 85396/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 103
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed an appeal filed by Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., holding that part of its refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit was wrongly rejected due to a clerical discrepancy in invoices. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals), Thane, which had denied a refund of Rs 44.72 lakh on the ground that the original invoice supporting the claim had not been produced.
Case Title : PRIVILEGE AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 106
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi recently set aside a customs duty demand of nearly Rs 19.76 crore raised against Privilege Airways Pvt. Ltd. over the import of a Falcon 2000 aircraft. The tribunal held that an aircraft imported for non-scheduled passenger services can also be used for non-scheduled charter services under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs.
Mere Audit Detection Not Ground To Invoke Extended Limitation Under Finance Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Final Order No. 50319/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 104
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 9 March, emphasised that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of a specific allegation of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ms. Binu Tamta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a service tax demand raised against the Rajasthan Housing Board, holding that where the taxpayer had disclosed the availment of CENVAT credit in its ST-3 returns, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the issue was detected during an audit.
Minimum Import Price Not Applicable To Domestic Tariff Clearances By 100% EOUs: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Exotic Granite LLP v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10498 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 105
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 March held that the Minimum Import Price (MIP) set by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) cannot be used to increase the assessable value of goods cleared by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unless there is evidence of undervaluation. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, partly allowed Exotic Granite LLP's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch, setting aside a Rs. 3.33 crore duty demand while upholding a smaller Rs. 28.59 lakh duty.
Service Tax Fully Exempt For Rural Skill And Vocational Training Under DDU-GKY: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10557 of 2020 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, on 27 February, ruled that training services under the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) are exempt from service tax if covered by the applicable notifications. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, allowed the appeal by Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., confirming that providing skill and vocational training to rural youth under DDU-GKY was fully exempt from service tax for the relevant period.
Supply Of Water To Vessels Within Port Liable To Service Tax Before 2010 Exemption: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Sea Shipping Services v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11127 of 2017 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the supply of water to vessels within a port area forms part of “port services” and is liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to the exemption introduced with effect from July 1, 2010. The bench comprising Judicial Member Dr Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh observed that, “We therefore, agree with the arguments of learned AR duly supported by the clarification issued by CBEC vide their letter dated 09.07.2001 read with Notification No.31/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 that supply of water within the port area is covered under the category of port services and is leviable to service tax prior to 01.07.2010.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Tobacco Processing Job Work: CESTAT Hyderabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST v. M/s Premier Tobacco Packers
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30423 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 109
The Hyderabad Bench of CESTAT has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Premier Tobacco Packers, holding that service tax cannot be levied on job work relating to threshing and redrying of tobacco leaves, as the issue is already settled by earlier Tribunal rulings treating such activity as processing of agricultural produce. The bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, which had set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,66,98,271 along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : Shahnaz Ayurvedics (Dehradoon) v. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Dehradun
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50578 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 110
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the 18 disputed products manufactured by Shahnaz Ayurvedics are Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines and not cosmetics, and therefore the excise duty demand, interest and penalties raised by the Department cannot be sustained. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the mere presence of excipients or fillers cannot take a product out of the category of Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines.
GSTAT
Samsung India Anti-Profiteering Case: GSTAT Directs DGAP To Re-Examine Cost, CSD Supply Issues
Case Title : DGAP v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/38/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi has directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to re-examine certain issues in the anti-profiteering proceedings involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. after the matter had earlier been reserved for pronouncement of the final order. A bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order after considering the matter and holding a conference between the members of the bench, concluding that certain aspects required further examination by the investigating authority.
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Tata Play Limited
Case Number : NAPA/166/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 10
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) in New Delhi on 11 March directed Tata Play Ltd. to deposit Rs. 450.18 crore in the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds in a 50:50 ratio, holding that it engaged in GST profiteering. A Division Bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad concluded that the company had failed to pass on the tax benefit to consumers as mandated under the GST Anti-Profiteering law.
Case Title : Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40141 to 40143/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 111
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax cannot be levied on reimbursement of advertisement and sales promotion expenses received by Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. from its foreign group company under a cost-sharing arrangement, as such payments do not constitute consideration for any taxable service. The bench, comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., observed that although the parties are distinct legal entities capable of a service provider–service recipient relationship, no taxable service was rendered in the present case and the amounts received merely represented reimbursement of jointly incurred expenses, which cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service.
Chennai CESTAT Allows Duty Exemption For JSW Steel, Rules Belated Reports Cannot Override Notice
Case Title : M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42447 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 112
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 March held that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by relying on test reports that were not part of the Show Cause Notice, and that adjudication cannot travel beyond the allegations contained in the notice. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao set aside the demand raised against JSW Steel Ltd., holding that the imported coal satisfied the exemption conditions at the time of import.
Case Title : The Regional Manager Tobacco Board v. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 251 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 113
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that statutory fees collected by the Tobacco Board for conducting auctions of Virginia tobacco cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services and, therefore, are not liable to service tax. The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi, who observed that the Tobacco Board was performing statutory and regulatory functions under the governing legislation and the fees collected in that capacity could not be treated as consideration for a taxable service.
Land Component In Country Club Membership Fee Cannot Be Included For Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Country Club (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Secunderabad - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30232 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 114
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of land included in composite membership packages offered by Country Club (India) Ltd (now known as Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd) (appellant) cannot be included in the taxable value for the purpose of levying service tax under the category of “club or association service". The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi stated that "The value of land sold/ transferred to members of the appellant's club through their sister concern, as verified by CA based on financial records, bank statements, other relevant documents and certified accordingly, would be accepted as value of land and the same will be excluded from the gross value for re-computation of tax liability, if any, keeping in view the payments of service tax already made. While computing the service tax liability net of land value, the cumtax benefit will also be extended along with eligible credit lying in the balance and used for payment of service tax."
Case Title : Bank of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 409 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 115
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reversal of CENVAT credit cannot exceed the proportionate credit attributable to exempt supplies, while granting relief to Bank of India and remanding the matter for recomputation of the credit liable to be reversed. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that “we agree with the submission of the appellant that the demand for reversal of credit should not exceed the proportionate credit based on the exempt supply made by them. Therefore, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of quantifying the proportionate credit liable to be reversed by the appellant, along with applicable interest.”
Absence Of Check-Post Stamps Not Proof Of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Zemini Marketing Company v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86026 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 117
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a mere absence of check-post stamps on transportation documents cannot create a presumption that goods were not transported. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed: ".....that only for the reason that the check-post documents were not produced or were incomplete, it does not mean that the goods were not transported as the documents like Bilty, statements of suppliers, supporting supply of goods to Shri Malu and M/s SVPMIPL are available on record. Hence, only for the reason that Form No. 402 showing transportation of goods was not presented, it cannot be assumed that the goods were not received by Shri Rajendra Malu or M/s SVPMIPL."
Transportation Of Mining Rejects To Dumping Yard Qualifies For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.42545 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 116
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that transportation of waste and reject materials arising during mining operations qualifies as an 'input service', and accordingly, CENVAT credit is allowed to Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that had denied credit on services relating to loading and transportation of limestone rejects from captive mines to dumping yards.
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40646 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 118
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of over Rs 82 crore against Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., holding that laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from its SEZ unit to customers in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) cannot be treated as “dutiable goods” or “personal imports” under the Customs Tariff Act. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, was dealing with the issue of classification of laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from an SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area and whether such supplies could be treated as 'personal imports' liable to duty under Heading 9804 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Case Title : Super Transports (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41763/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 119
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that in a works contract involving tyre retreading, where VAT had been discharged on 70% of the contract value under the prescribed method, service tax could be levied only on the remaining 30%, observing that the same portion cannot be subjected to both levies. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Madurai-based Super Transports (P) Ltd.
Non-Charging Of Service Tax From Client Cannot Justify Non-Payment: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Ashima Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax – Ahmedabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 12328 of 2014-SM
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 120
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged by the taxpayer from its client cannot be a valid basis to claim bona fide belief, while also holding that commission agents, other than those dealing in agricultural produce, became liable to service tax from 9 July 2004. A coram of Judicial Member Somesh Arora observed, "The statutory provisions are clear and leave no scope for interpretation. Non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged cannot be considered a valid basis for claiming any bona fide belief." The bench also noted that "the only commission agents who remained exempted were those engaged in relation to the sale and purchase of agricultural produce."
VCES Immunity Bars Fresh Service Tax Demand After Discharge Certificate Is Issued: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. ARS Transport v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41417/2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 122
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that once a taxpayer declares dues under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and obtains a discharge certificate, the Department cannot issue a fresh notice for the same period on the same issue. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that a declaration accepted under the scheme attains finality and grants immunity from further proceedings.
BCCI Subsidies To Cricket Associations Not Taxable As Service Consideration: Kolkata CESTAT
Case Title : The Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata v. M/s. The Cricket Association of Bengal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75455 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 121
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that subsidies received by cricket associations from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are not liable to service tax, as they are in the nature of grants-in-aid and not consideration for any taxable service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that there was no quid pro quo between the parties and that the amounts were provided to promote the game of cricket.
Case Title : MRF Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40512 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 123
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a demand of over Rs. 221 crore raised against MRF Limited, holding that tyres, tubes and flaps tied with plastic straps do not constitute “pre-packaged commodities” under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and therefore cannot be subjected to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that plastic strapping used merely for transport safety does not amount to “packaging” and therefore does not trigger the requirement of declaring retail sale price under the Legal Metrology law.
Case Title : M/s. DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, GST Commissionerate- South Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55716 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 124
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., owner of Hotel Hilton Garden Inn, Saket, and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 39.64 lakh along with penalties, holding that salaries paid to the general manager and department heads of the hotel cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services. The dispute arose from an investigation linked to Hilton group entities, wherein the department alleged that the appellant had structured its arrangement in a manner that excluded salary payments to key managerial personnel, such as the general manager and department heads, from the taxable “operator fee” paid to Hilton's overseas entities.
Case Title : Forrester Research India Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 51243 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 125
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently held that services such as common area maintenance, vending machine operations, and travel agent services qualify as “input services” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in the case of a company providing taxable services including manpower supply, rent-a-cab, business auxiliary, and legal consultancy services. The tribunal held that such services have an indirect nexus with the provision of output services, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied on that ground.
Case Title : McCann Erickson (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Commissioner of CGST & CX GST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52352 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 126
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the Government cannot deny refund of excess service tax paid by mistake merely on the ground that the refund claim was filed after the limitation period, observing that amounts not legally payable as tax cannot be retained by the authorities. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya said that where tax is paid without any legal liability, such payment does not assume the character of service tax and therefore would not be governed by the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Tax Refund Cannot Be Denied As Time-Barred Where Service Was Not Provided: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER, DIVISION- CONNAUGHT PLACE, CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51091 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 127
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20 March held that refund of service tax paid on services which were ultimately not provided cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing appeals filed by Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd against rejection of refund claims on the ground of time bar.
Service Tax Demand Unsustainable Where Warranty Services Qualify As Works Contract: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Electrocare v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50720 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 128
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 March, held that a service tax demand cannot be sustained if warranty services qualify as Works Contract Services and all material particulars are duly disclosed, and that invoking the extended period of limitation is improper in the absence of suppression. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Electrocare, set aside the service tax demand raised for FY 2014–15, holding that the demand was unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Paddy Reaper Without Binder Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. VST Tillers Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40879 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 126
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that paddy reapers imported without a binder attachment cannot claim concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., which applies only to “reaper-cum-binder” machines. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by VST Tillers Tractors Ltd., while also holding that confiscation and penalty cannot be imposed where there is no misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.
Crossing Green Channel With Gold Hidden In Paste Form Shows Intent To Smuggle: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Shri Senthil Kumar Anbalagan v. Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30558 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 127
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a passenger's concealment of gold in paste form on the body and crossing the green channel at an international airport clearly establishes intent to smuggle, justifying absolute confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that concealment and non-declaration after opting for the green channel show deliberate evasion: "Once the passenger arrives from the foreign country and carries goods liable for declaration, the liability under the Customs Act arises regardless of the precise point of interception. The concealment of gold in paste form is a common modus operandi adapted to evade detection, and such conduct clearly establishes intention to smuggle."
Department Cannot Demand 6% Of Value On Exempted Electricity Once Credit Is Reversed: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. EID Parry India Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41118 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 128
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that once a taxpayer reverses proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods, the Department cannot compel payment of 6% of the value of such goods. The Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, allowed the appeals by EID Parry India Ltd., holding the demands and penalties unsustainable both on merits and limitation.
Case Title : M/s Indus Towers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60669 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 129
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed appeals filed by Indus Towers Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services relating to telecom towers and shelters is admissible The dispute arose from multiple show cause notices issued for the financial years 2014–15 and 2015–16, alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used for providing passive telecom infrastructure.
Confiscation Cannot Survive Once Declared Transaction Value Is Accepted: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Kumar Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85820 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 130
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 March, held that the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained once the declared transaction value is accepted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties imposed on Kumar Impex, reasoning that once the transaction value is accepted, the allegation of undervaluation and resulting revenue loss no longer survives.
Failure To Specify Statutory Provisions Vitiates Service Tax Demand: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Trade Line v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42207 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 131
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 17 March set aside a service tax demand against Trade Line, holding that the Department cannot proceed when it fails to put the taxpayer on notice of the statutory provisions applicable to the relevant period. The Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held: “We also find that the Appellant has rightly contended that the Show Cause Notice No.30/2013 dated 18.09.2013 has not put the appellant to notice of the relevant statutory provisions post 01-07-2012 in order to sustain the demand for the period from 01-07-2012.”
CESTAT Chandigarh Upholds Transfer Of CENVAT Credit After Shift Of Centralised Registration
Case Title : Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 1017 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 132
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh Bench, has recently held that transfer of unutilised CENVAT credit by a taxpayer from its Jaipur office to Gurgaon upon shifting of centralised registration is legally sustainable, in the absence of any dispute regarding the validity of such credit at the original location. A coram of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, while rejecting the Revenue's objection to the transfer of credit, noted that the Department itself had not questioned the credit originally availed at Jaipur, observing that “the department has not disputed the CENVAT Credit availed by the Assessees at their Jaipur office. The department has also not alleged that the CENVAT Credit had already been utilized in Jaipur.”
Transportation And Disposal Of Fly Ash Not Cargo, No Service Tax Leviable: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Threyambaka Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 3308 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 133
On 24 March, the Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore, held that transportation and disposal of fly ash cannot be classified as 'Cargo Handling Service' under the Finance Act, 1994. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi, set aside substantial service tax demands raised by the Department against Threyambaka Enterprises.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside TANTRANSCO Demand As Time Barred, But Clarifies Rent-a-Cab Service Taxable
Case Title : Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40323 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 134
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24 March, held that hiring motor vehicles for official use, classified as rent-a-cab services are not eligible for exemption under the reverse charge mechanism and remain liable to service tax, as they are merely facilitative in nature and not integral to the core function of electricity transmission A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. clarified that such services does not have a direct and proximate nexus with the activity of transmission or distribution of electricity.
Case Title : Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 89472 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 135
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 March, held that re-determination of value of imported goods without proper evidence of undervaluation is unsustainable in law. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed an appeal by Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty by the customs authorities. The Bench stated: “…the whole process of arriving at the re-determined value… is contrary to the law and factually incorrect.”
Import Value Cannot Be Re-Determined Solely Based On Local Engineer Certificate: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Abirami Weaving Mills v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40225 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 135
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 25 March held that the declared value of imported second-hand machinery cannot be rejected and re-determined solely on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's certificate. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed an appeal filed by Abirami Weaving Mills against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. It held: “...we are of the view that the redetermination of declared value based solely on local Chartered Engineer's certificate is not in order....”
Amortised Cost Of Moulds And Dies Includible In Assessable Value Under Excise Act: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Best Cast IT Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41797 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 136
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 March 2026 held that the amortised value of moulds and dies supplied by customers must be included in the assessable value of finished goods under excise law. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the appeal filed by Best Cast IT Ltd., a manufacturer of aluminium die-cast automotive components.
Case Title : Vardhman Textiles Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55845 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 136
Ruling that a notification granting nil customs duty on cotton imports cannot be applied to Bills of Entry filed before it came into force, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected Vardhman Textiles' claim for exemption. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd., affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85618 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 137
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services used for outward transportation, holding that where goods are supplied on FOR (Free on Road) destination basis, the buyer's premises can be treated as the “place of removal." A single-member coram comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma dealing with an appeal filed by Gnat Foundry Pvt. Ltd. challenging the denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services used for transporting goods to customers' premises.
Case Title : ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20435-20436 of 20192
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 137
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed by ANZ Support Services India Pvt. Ltd., an SEZ unit, holding that denying refund on the ground that employee group medical and personal accident insurance do not fall within “General Insurance Services” is “absolutely irrelevant” in the facts of the case. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi while dealing with the department's objection that the insurance services did not fall within “General Insurance Services”, observed, "The question of rejecting the refund claim on a ground that General Insurance does not include the specific insurance claimed by the appellant is absolutely irrelevant, in as much as the insurance is for the employees of the appellant. Moreover, the question of referring to the Cenvat Credit Rules for the admissibility of the refund is also misplaced since the refund is based only on the ground that specified services on which tax is discharged is used in the authorised operations which admittedly the appellant has satisfied.”
Case Title : M/s. Doddanavar Brothers v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20085 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 138
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category cannot be levied where transportation is undertaken through individual truck operators without issuance of consignment notes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Bhagya Devi set aside the demand raised on freight expenses incurred for transportation of iron ore for export by Doddanavar Brothers, a mining exporter.
Case Title : M/s. Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 25401 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 139
On 24 March, the Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “Expanded Fire Clay Grog” is correctly classifiable as a ceramic product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6902. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by Saint-Gobain India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the product satisfies the essential requirement for classification under Chapter 69, namely: “fired after shaping.”
Case Title : Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20233 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 140
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has recently allowed appeals filed by Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd., holding that freight margin and foreign exchange fluctuation gains cannot be treated as consideration for service tax. Observing that the issue is no longer res integra, the tribunal held, "Since, these issues are squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 20650/2024 dated 23.07.2024 and 21361-21362/2025 dated 02.09.2025, demand against said impugned orders are unsustainable."
Invoice Errors Cannot Block CENVAT Credit If Receipt And Use of Goods Are Proven: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Kavveri Telecom Products Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 141
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March clarified that minor discrepancies in invoices cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit where the receipt and use of goods are duly established. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao held that the denial of credit to Kavveri Telecom Products Ltd., the appellant, was unjustified, as it had produced sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating receipt, payment, and utilization of inputs.
Case Title : M/s Indra Sistemas India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 22044 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 142
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus cannot be denied to a sub-contractor merely because their name does not appear in the main concession agreement, where its role is otherwise established on record. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao observed that the condition of being a “named sub-contractor” stands satisfied if the appointment is evident from agreements, communications, and certification by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
No Service Tax On Commission Paid To Foreign Agents For Services Outside India: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cochin
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20938 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 143
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 March held that no service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism on commission paid to foreign agents where the services are rendered and received outside India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Mr. P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Mrs. R. Bhagya Devi observed: “Since the services are rendered abroad and not received in India, the question of liability to pay service tax under Section 66A does not arise.”
No Service Tax On Invoices Issued Before Completion Of Work: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s APN Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Ghaziabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70680 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 137
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 March held that service tax is not payable on invoices issued before completion of work. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed an appeal by APN Infra Pvt. Ltd., observing: “Invoice is required to be issued within 30 days after completion of the service or on receipt of payment towards value of taxable service.”
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Confirms ₹2.5 Lakh Profiteering By Kumar 70 MM For Ticket Price Hike Despite GST Cut
Case Title : DGAP vs. Kumar 70 MM
Case Number : NAPA/22/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 6
The Delhi Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 30 January 2026 held Hyderabad-based Kumar 70 MM cinema hall liable to deposit Rs. 2,50,148.39 for failing to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to customers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found that the theatre had raised ticket prices above normal MRP despite a GST rate reduction from 18% to 12% for tickets up to Rs. 100 and from 28% to 18% for tickets above Rs. 100.
GSTAT Delhi Upholds ₹90.9 Lakh Profiteering Finding Against Wai Wai Noodles Maker
Case Title : DGAP vs. C.G Foods
Case Number : NAPA/99/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has ordered C.G. Foods, the maker of Wai Wai instant noodles, to deposit Rs. 90.9 lakh after holding that the benefit of a GST rate cut was not passed on to consumers. The order was passed by a single-member bench of Anil Kumar Gupta, which agreed with the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering that the company increased base prices even after the tax rate on instant noodles was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from November 15, 2017.
Case Title : Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha, Commissionerate of CT GST
Case Number : APL/1/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 7
In its first paperless judgment delivered after fully virtual hearings and its first decision in a statutory second appeal, the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that if allegations of fraud (Section 74 of the CGST Act) do not stand, the case cannot be converted into a normal short-payment proceeding (Section 73) and decided at the appellate stage. Since it became operational in September 2025, the tribunal had so far been dealing only with anti-profiteering matters. This is its first judgment in a matter outside that subject jurisdiction.
Case Title : DGAP vs. AJ Enterprises
Case Number : NAPA/2/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 8
Holding that the franchisee increased base prices on the very date the GST rate on restaurant services was reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent, the GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has upheld findings that a Pune-based Subway outlet at Amanora Mall profiteered ₹13,32,322 by neutralising the tax benefit meant for consumers. “The Respondent's action of increasing the base price on the very same date on which the notification reducing rate of tax came into force indicates that Respondent has willfully increased the basic price of the aforesaid items to maintain the same MRP that existed till 14.11.2017. Resultantly, the benefit of reduced tax rate could not be passed on to consumer,” Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held on Friday.
GSTAT Delhi Orders Panchsheel Buildtech To Return ₹98 Lakh To Homebuyers In Anti-Profiteering Case
Case Title : DGAP vs. Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/59/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 9
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 20 February upheld an anti-profiteering charge against Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and directed it to return Rs. 98 lakh to homebuyers of its three Noida-based residential projects. Technical Member A. Venu Prasad found the company liable for profiteering for non-passing of the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers as required under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal held that Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies and a penalty of 10 percent of the profiteered amount would be leviable if repayment was delayed beyond 20 March 2026.
No Pre-Deposit For Revenue In GSTAT Appeals; Principal Bench Issues Instructions For Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench has clarified that appeals filed by the Revenue will not require payment of pre-deposit or court fee while issuing instructions on the documents that must accompany appeals filed before the Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In instructions dated March 10, 2025, the tribunal stated that appeals filed through Form APL-05 (appeal filed by Revenue) must include soft copies of the Show Cause Notice, Order-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal, statement of facts, and grounds of appeal.
GSTAT New Delhi Orders ₹47.71 Lakh Refund In Anti‑Profiteering Case, Holds Penalty Non‑Retrospective
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/113/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 11
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi directed Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer, to pass on Rs. 47.71 lakh, along with interest, to homebuyers for failing to transfer GST input tax credit benefits to them. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad allowed the appeal filed by the Director General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP), holding that the developer had engaged in profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. It further clarified that the penalty under Section 171(3A) cannot be applied retrospectively.
Interest On Profiteered Amounts Must Run From Date of Collection: GSTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/130/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 12
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi on 20 March held that interest on profiteered amounts must be paid from the date of collection of excess amounts. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad rejected the contention that interest should run only from project completion. He wrote: “Rule 133(3)(b)… expressly empowers the Authority to order return of the amount… along with interest… from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of its return. The provision is mandatory in nature”, while directing a real estate developer to refund ₹11,91,763 to homebuyers.
GSTAT Confirms Anti-Profiteering Demand Against Real Estate Company, Directs Refund Of ₹17.75 Lakh
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering, Director General Of Anti Profiteering, DGAP V. Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : NAPA/132/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 13
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 23 March confirmed an anti-profiteering demand against Duville Estates Pvt. Ltd, a real estate developer, directed it to pay Rs. 17,75,622 along with applicable interest to homebuyers. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain accepting the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), recorded: “the report of the DGAP dated 18.12.2024 is accordingly accepted.”
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Unnathi Associates
Case Number : NAPA/129/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 14
Recently, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), in New Delhi, held that liability to pay interest on profiteered amounts arises from the time of supply, that is, when excess consideration is collected from buyers, and not from the date of obtaining a completion certificate. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order on 19 March in an appeal filed by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) against Unnathi Associates, developer of the “Raunak Heights” project in Thane.
GSTAT Orders LIC HFL Care Homes To Refund Rs 2.31 Crore To 240 Homebuyers For GST Profiteering
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/112/PB/2025
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held LIC HFL Care Homes Ltd. guilty of profiteering and directed it to refund Rs 2.31 crore with 18% interest to 240 homebuyers for failing to pass on additional input tax credit (ITC) benefits available after the introduction of GST from July 1, 2017. A coram of President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order in proceedings arising from an investigation by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP).
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling
DMF, NMET Contributions Form Part Of Mining Royalty; GST Only On NMET: Telangana AAAR
Case Title : Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.
Case Number : Order-In-Appeal No. AAAR/1/2026
The Telangana State Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that statutory payments made to the District Mineral Foundation and the National Mineral Exploration Trust are not voluntary contributions. It ruled that these payments are mandated amounts linked to mining royalty and made in the course and furtherance of business. GST, however, is payable only on NMET contributions and not on payments made to DMF.
GST On Iced Tea 5%, Beverages Without Fruit Pulp Or Juice 40%: West Bengal AAR Clarifies
Case Title : Sage Organics Private Limited
Case Number : WBAAR 30 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that non-alcoholic beverages not containing fruit pulp or fruit juice fall under other non-alcoholic beverages and attract GST at 20% CGST and 20% SGST, while iced tea preparations and tea extracts are classifiable as extracts, essences and concentrates of tea, and preparations based on such extracts, attracting GST at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST. A coram of Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, Shafeeq S and Senior Joint Commissioner, SGST Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti said, “In our considered view, the non-alcoholic beverages as specified by the applicant will come under serial no. 2 of Schedule III and as such will be taxed @ 20% CGST + 20% SGST.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Cigarettes Turn Costlier From Today As 40% Sin Tax Kicks In
Cigarettes will get 40% costlier from today, as higher taxes on tobacco products notified by the Union government take effect from February 1, 2026. The Ministry of Finance had issued the notification on December 31, 2025, replacing the GST compensation cess with a 40 per cent sin tax under the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While the notification was issued earlier, the revised levy becomes applicable from today.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Sharp Cuts In TCS On Overseas Travel, Education And Medical Remittances
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday also proposed significant reductions in tax collection at source (TCS) rates on overseas travel and certain foreign remittances. Presenting the direct tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a cut in TCS on foreign tour packages. “I propose to reduce TCS rate on the sale of overseas tour programme packages from the current 5 per cent and 20 per cent to 2 per cent, without any stipulation of amount,” she said.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Withdrawal Of Select Customs Exemptions, Tariff Simplification
The Union Budget 2026–27 proposed changes to India's customs duty framework aimed at simplifying the tariff structure and reducing long-standing distortions. Presenting her indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To further simplify the tariff structure, support domestic manufacturing, promote export competitiveness, and correct inversion in duty, I propose to remove certain long-continuing customs duty exemptions on items which are being manufactured in India or where imports are negligible.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 presented on Sunday proposed customs duty relief for personal imports and medicines used in the treatment of serious illnesses. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To rationalise the customs duty structure for goods imported for personal use, I propose to reduce the tariff rate on all dutiable goods imported for personal use from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed changes to customs rules governing baggage clearance during international travel to address passenger concerns and align duty-free allowances with current travel patterns. Presenting the indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “I propose to revise provisions governing baggage clearance during international travel to address genuine concerns of passengers.”
Budget Proposes Hike In Securities Transaction Tax On Futures And Options
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed an increase in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on futures and options trades. Presenting the Budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced higher STT rates for derivative transactions. “I propose to raise the STT on Futures to 0.05 per cent from the present 0.02 per cent,” she said.
Union Budget 2026: FM Proposes Rollout Of Customs Integrated System (CIS) In 2 Years
Presenting the Union Budget 2026, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the rollout of a new Customs Integrated System to overhaul customs processes. “I propose that a Customs Integrated System will be rolled out in two years as a single, integrated and scalable platform for all customs processes,” Sitharaman said.
AIDC Levy On Aircraft Tyres To Continue At 0.5 Percent After Budget 2026-27
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, as part of the Union Budget 2026–27, clarified that new pneumatic tyres of rubber used on aircraft will continue to attract Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) at 0.5%. The clarification applies to goods falling under tariff item 4011 30 00. AIDC is a customs duty levied under Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2021. It is charged on notified imported goods.
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a key change in the GST treatment of certain cross-border services, especially those provided by Indian intermediaries to overseas clients. Under the current GST regime, the place of supply for cross-border services is governed by Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. This section applies when either the supplier or the recipient of a service is located outside India.
Finance Bill, 2026 Proposes Enabling GST Appellate Tribunal To Hear Advance Ruling Appeals
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a change in the GST appellate framework that will allow the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear a limited category of advance ruling appeals. GSTAT will continue to function as the appellate forum for regular GST disputes such as classification, valuation, and input tax credit. The proposed change does not alter this role.
Changes In Interest Calculation For GST Monthly Return From January 2026; GSTN Issues Advisory
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory setting out changes to interest computation and related system features in the monthly return GSTR-3B (GST). The changes will apply from the January 2026 tax period onwards. From January 2026, interest shown in Table 5.1 of GSTR-3B (GST) will be calculated after adjusting the minimum cash balance available in the Electronic Cash Ledger from the due date of filing until the date of tax payment. The change follows the proviso to Rule 88B(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Interest will be worked out on the net tax liability for the period of delay.
UltraTech Cement Receives GST Demands of ₹15.26 Crore from Tamil Nadu Authorities
UltraTech Cement Limited recently informed stock exchanges that the State GST authorities in Tamil Nadu have issued two orders raising a cumulative tax demand of Rs. 15.26 crore, along with interest and penalties, on allegations of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. As per the disclosure, the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Trichy, and were received by the company on January 29, 2026.
Baggage Rules 2026 Allow Returning Indians To Bring Jewellery Upto 40 Gram Duty-Free
The Central Government has notified the Baggage Regulations, 2026, giving a limited category of international passengers a special duty-free allowance for jewellery. Under the Regulations , Indian residents and tourists of Indian origin who have lived abroad for more than one year can bring jewellery over and above their personal effects into India without paying customs duty, within specified limits.
CBIC Extends Deferred Import Duty Facility To Compliant Businesses From March 2026
On 1 February 2026, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) proposed extending the deferred payment of import duty facility to compliant businesses from 1 March 2026 through Notification No. 13/2026. Per the Notification, the facility will be available until 31 March 2028, and payments will be monitored through Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES) dashboards.
DGFT Imposes Import Curbs On Umbrellas With CIF Value Below ₹100
On 5 February 2026, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued a notification amending the import policy for umbrellas from “Free” to “Restricted”. The change applies to umbrellas classified under Chapter 66 of Schedule I (Import Policy) of India's Import Trade Classification (Harmonised System), 2022.
GSTN Introduces New Online Module To Unblock Barred Returns On Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has now launched a new “Application for Unbarring Returns” module on the GST Portal, allowing taxpayers to seek online removal of system-imposed restrictions on filing GST returns. The module provides a legal and digital process to address cases where returns are barred after three years of non-filing.
“Additional Notices” Now Merged With Main “Notices and Orders” Tab On GST Portal
The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has merged the “Additional Notices & Orders” tab with the main “Notices and Orders” section on the GST Portal, consolidating all issued notices and orders into a single interface. Taxpayers can now view all notices and orders on the portal by navigating to Dashboard → Services → User Services → View Notices and Orders.
No GST Dues Pending For Release To States, Centre's Response Informs Lok Sabha
In a written response to the Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Finance Shri Pankaj Chaudhary clarified that the government has released Rs. 2,01,195 crore of GST compensation to States and Union Territories for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2022. He further confirmed that no GST dues are currently pending for release to the States, except for Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, where final payments remain on hold due to the non-receipt of the required Accountant General (AG) certificates.
GSTN Activates Withdrawal Facility For Small Taxpayers To Opt Out Of Simplified Registration Option
As of 21 February 2026, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has activated the facility to file Form GST REG-32 for taxpayers who wish to opt out of registration under Rule 14A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. To mitigate compliance burdens, as part of the 'Next Generation GST Reforms', a Simplified GST Registration Scheme for Small and Low-Risk Businesses under Rule 14A was introduced in 2025.
CBIC Issues Simplified Procedure For Export Cargo Returning To India After Strait Of Hormuz Closure
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued a circular prescribing a simplified procedure for handling export cargo that is returning to Indian ports after vessels were unable to reach their destinations due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted amid ongoing conflict in the Gulf region, forcing several commercial vessels to turn back before reaching their destination ports.
Govt Spent ₹88.74 Crore On Advertising 'GST Bachat Utsav': Finance Ministry Tells Lok Sabha
The Union Government spent Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the “GST Bachat Utsav," a publicity campaign to spread awareness about GST rate rationalisation, the Ministry of Finance informed the Lok Sabha in response to a question on March 9, 2026. Responding to a question raised by Jagdish Chandra Barma Basunia, BJP MP from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, the Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, stated that the government incurred Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the campaign. GST Bachat Utsav was a 100-day, nationwide, post-56th GST Council meeting campaign launched on September 22, 2025, to pass on reduced tax benefits to consumers.
The Union government has informed the Lok Sabha that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework does not provide separate tax treatment for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) or foods high in fat, sugar, or salt (HFSS), and that no formal assessment has been undertaken on the potential health and economic benefits of imposing higher taxes on such products. Responding to a question asked by Congress MP G. Kumar Naik from Raichur in Karnataka, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said on Monday that GST rates and exemptions are prescribed on the recommendations of the GST Council, which consists of members of the Union and State governments.
GSTAT Rajkot Bench Starts Functioning
The GST Appellate Tribunal's Rajkot bench has begun functioning, with authorities issuing a trade notice on March 18 to inform businesses and tax professionals that the long-awaited forum is now operational in Gujarat. The tribunal is working from its office at the RK Iconic building on 150 Feet Ring Road in Rajkot. Officials said appeals can be filed through the GSTAT online portal, which was rolled out last year, and a toll-free helpline has also been provided to help users facing difficulty while filing cases.
GSTAT Kolkata Bench Starts Functioning
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has commenced functioning, with all appeals from designated jurisdictions now required to be filed before it. The Tribunal clarified that it will exercise jurisdiction over West Bengal, Sikkim and Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Public Notice No. 01/2026 dated 23.03.2026, issued by the GSTAT Kolkata Bench. The office of the Kolkata Bench is located at 2/5, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata–700027 (Old Door Sanchar Bhawan).
Centre Designates 22 GSTAT Judicial Members As Vice Presidents For State Benches
The Ministry of Finance has designated Judicial Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) as Vice Presidents for State GSTAT Benches across India, in exercise of powers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Office Order No. 01/2026, dated 23 March 2026 states: “The President of India… is pleased to designate the following Judicial Members of GSTAT as Vice Presidents of their respective state benches.”
Union Budget 2026-27: Centre Notifies Finance Act, 2026
The Central Government has notified the Finance Act, 2026, giving statutory effect to the budget proposals for the financial year 2026-27 after receiving presidential assent on March 30, 2026. The Act, published in the Gazette of India, states, "An Act to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2026-27.” Most provisions of the legislation will come into force from April 1, 2026, including those relating to income-tax rates and amendments to tax laws, while a limited set of provisions dealing with implementation and administrative matters will be brought into effect on dates to be notified separately.