LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Monthly Digest: March 2026
Kapil Dhyani
1 April 2026 4:04 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
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
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
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 : 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.
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 : 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
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
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) 49
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
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
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
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
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.
Punjab & Haryana HC
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 : 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 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
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).
Authority For Advance Ruling
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
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.