LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Monthly Digest: October 2026
Kapil Dhyani
5 Nov 2026 5:24 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Tax Classification Depends On Form Of Goods At Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court
Case Title : Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 9788–9789 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 327
The Supreme Court has held that a product must be classified for tax purposes in the form in which it is sold, rather than on the basis of what a consumer may later turn it into. “The tax authorities are bound to look at what is supplied and not at what is the 'end use' of the good,” a Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli observed while dismissing the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Department's appeals over the classification of Cadila Health Care Ltd.'s 'GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix'.
Case Title : BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CGST
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 53103/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.'s special leave petition challenging a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai order that partly upheld service tax demands on charges collected from life insurance policyholders. The Tribunal, in its April 10, 2026 order, set aside service tax demands on surrender, discontinuation and foreclosure charges, relying on its earlier rulings in similar cases involving life insurance companies.
Case Title : The Assessing Officer, Textiles Committee v. M/s. Premium Suiting Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2016 | 2026 INSC 1158
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 339
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) ruled that dyeing and bleaching fabrics received from handloom and powerloom units on a job-work basis do not amount to manufacture for the purpose of levying textile cess under the Textiles Committee Act, 1963. A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the word 'manufacture' is not defined under the Act and cannot be interpreted by borrowing its definition from another law.
Aggrieved Party Must Get At Least One Hearing On Merits: Supreme Court Restores Customs Appeal
Case Title : International Air Charter Operations (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) Diary No. 26745/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 341
The Supreme Court has recently restored an aircraft operator's customs appeal after it failed to get its claim for a duty exemption examined on merits before any forum. The court held that an aggrieved party must have at least one appellate forum to address its grievances. “Right of appeal being a precious remedy, Courts shall endeavour to ensure that an aggrieved party has at least one appellate forum to address its grievances,” a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : M/s Sai Baba Ent Bhatta v. Commissioner Commercial Tax
Case Number : SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 276 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 80
The Allahabad High Court on 11 September held that the Joint Commissioner (Executive) cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 without an order of authorisation by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Proceedings initiated by an unauthorised officer are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed Sai Baba Ent Bhatta's revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, holding that there was nothing on record to show that the Commissioner had conferred the revisional power on the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Etawah.
Mere Excise Registration Lapse Not Wilful Suppression If Dept. Knew About Unit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Siraj Ahmad v. Union of India and others
Case Number : WRIT - C No. - 1000173 of 1998
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 81
The Allahabad High Court on 25 September held that the extended five-year limitation period under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked merely because a manufacturer failed to register or produce declarations, where the department already knew about his manufacturing unit and the goods manufactured there. Justice Irshad Ali quashed the demand of Rs.6,27,086/- in Additional Excise Duty and the equivalent penalty imposed on Siraj Ahmad, proprietor of Siraj Tobacco Company, finding that the department failed to establish wilful suppression or an intention to evade duty.
Case Title : Laxmi Narayan Gupta v. State Of U.P And 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 4103 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 86
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST authorities cannot automatically be required to allow cross-examination merely because the reason given for denying such a request is legally unsustainable. The need for cross-examination must be assessed on the facts of each case. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held “While we accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the reasoning offered by the adjudicating authority to decline opportunity of cross-examination of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is unsustainable, at the same time, it cannot be said by way of a corollary-therefore, that opportunity must necessarily have been granted by the adjudicating authority. Which witness is to be cross-examined, is an issue to be dealt with by the adjudicating authority on its own facts in each case.”
Case Title : Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an ex parte adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 where the show-cause notice had been served on the dealer only through the Common Portal, almost five years after his registration had already been cancelled. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. had, by Circular dated May 07, 2025, issued binding instructions to subordinate authorities to serve physical notice on noticees facing adjudication proceedings begun after cancellation of their registration.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Against 18% GST On Online Legal Research Services
Case Title : Aniket Gupta v. Union of India and 4 Others
Case Number : PIL No. 2544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 90
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL challenging the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research and legal educational data-based services, questioning why the petitioner had waited until 2026 to challenge a tax rate that had been in place since 2017. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the advocate had not explained what had suddenly prompted him to question the tax rate.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Modem Rice Mill v. CTO Bheemavaram
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 30640/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 56
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that dealers must submit Form H declarations by the time of assessment by the first assessing authority to claim a tax benefit on the last sale of goods preceding an export. The Full Bench clarified that the extended filing period available for Forms C and F under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, does not apply to Form H declarations. A three-judge Bench of Justice Battu Devanand, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma delivered the ruling while answering a reference arising from a batch of writ petitions concerning the time limit for submitting Form H declarations.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Richa Shipping Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 32353 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 543
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 110A of the Customs Act does not prescribe a uniform security for provisional release of seized goods and that the quantum must be determined reasonably based on the facts of each case. “Section 110A of the Customs Act does not prescribe a uniform security for any case and the quantum depends on the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of the offence, goods/cargo, value of the seized conveyance, revenue exposure, confiscation/fine/penalty implications, role of the person seeking release and other relevant factors,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil held.
Indian-Registered Vehicle Returning From Overseas Trip Not A Fresh Import: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Denis Vanin v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3619 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 545
An Indian-registered vehicle does not become a fresh foreign import merely because it is brought back to India in a shipping container after an overseas road trip, the Bombay High Court has ruled. A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil held that a Mahindra Thar belonging to Russian national Denis Vanin had legally left India as a private conveyance for travel. Its subsequent placement in a maritime container for safe transit back to India did not transform it into international trade cargo.
Supplementary Deed Changing Payment Terms Not Fresh Conveyance For Stamp Duty: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Om Shivam Builders Private Limited v. Joint District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raigad & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4682 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 549
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a supplementary deed that only changes the manner of satisfying an already agreed consideration cannot be treated as a fresh conveyance for imposing stamp duty. Justice Amit Borkar set aside a stamp duty demand of ₹21.08 lakh and penalty of ₹51.18 lakh against Om Shivam Builders Private Limited. The Court held that the Stamp Authority must first establish that a document contains a transaction chargeable to stamp duty before proceeding to value the property mentioned in it.
Case Title : Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 987 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 551
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that educational institutions cannot claim property tax exemption merely because they are run by a charitable trust or enjoy minority institution status, and must establish that their premises are used solely for charitable purposes to claim exemption for each financial year. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed a petition filed by Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust challenging property tax demands raised by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) against its educational institutions in Pune.
GST Appeals Can't Be Dismissed Without Hearing Taxpayer On Pre-Deposit Shortfall: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bhagyoday Agro Industries v. Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9256 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 562
The Bombay High Court on 12 October held that a GST appeal cannot be dismissed for a shortfall in mandatory pre-deposit without first giving the taxpayer notice or an opportunity to rectify the defect. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil set aside the rejection of an appeal filed by Bhagyoday Agro Industries against a GST demand of approximately Rs. 14.77 crore.
Case Title : Rakesh Rajendra Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number : Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2370 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 566
The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a tax consultant accused of retaining over ₹45 lakh given to him by a client for GST payments and allegedly preparing fake GST bills to show that the amount had been deposited with the government. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Rakesh Rajendra Thakur, who was booked under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Can MVAT Credit Be Denied To Genuine Buyers For Sellers' Tax Default? Bombay High Court To Examine
Case Title : IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number : Maharashtra VAT Appeal Nos. 35 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 576
The Bombay High Court will examine whether Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, permits the denial of input tax credit (ITC) to a bona fide purchaser without any allegation of fraud, collusion, or connivance, particularly when the State has failed to recover the tax from the defaulting seller. A Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad admitted six appeals filed by IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited against the State of Maharashtra. The court will also examine whether deductions for subcontract payments under the Maharashtra VAT Rules, 2005, are independent of or subject to the state VAT Act.
Case Title : 1Pay Mobileware Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 577
The Bombay High Court has observed that GST authorities cannot justify provisional attachment of bank accounts through affidavits-in-reply when the attachment orders themselves do not record the required opinion or establish any GST liability of the company. “Further, the orders of provisional attachment cannot be justified through affidavits-in-reply. Neither the impugned orders nor the affidavit-in-reply contain any 'opinion'. The same is indicative of only official inquiry. There is no material on record to show that there is any GST liability on the petitioner,” the court observed.
Case Title : Aegon Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 61 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 581
The Bombay High Court will examine whether shipping lines, shipping agents, and carriers that neither hold physical custody of cargo nor operate cargo within customs premises can be classified as 'Customs Cargo Service Providers' under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash framed this question while admitting an appeal filed by Aegon Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai.
Case Title : Heimerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 582
The Bombay High Court on Monday ruled that new import restrictions cannot apply to platinum jewellery that had already arrived in India before the restrictions were officially published, even if the importer files customs documents later. Relying on apex court's ruling in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India ,a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held., “The Notification acquired the force of law only on 2nd April 2026 at 20:52:58 hours, and it can be validly applied only to the goods dispatched from the country of export after its publication and not to goods already dispatched and arrived in India prior to its publication.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹62.42 Lakh GST Demand Over Notices Uploaded In Wrong Portal Section
Case Title : Abracadabra India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 586
The Bombay High Court on 16 October set aside a GST demand of Rs. 62.42 lakh against Abracadabra India after finding that the tax department had uploaded the notices in a separate section of the GST portal, depriving the company of an opportunity to respond. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held that the notices had not been uploaded in the regular “View Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal but in the “Additional Notices and Orders” section, which the company had failed to notice.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹62.42 Lakh GST Demand Over Notices Uploaded In Wrong Portal Section
Case Title : Abracadabra India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 586
The Bombay High Court on 16 October set aside a GST demand of Rs. 62.42 lakh against Abracadabra India after finding that the tax department had uploaded the notices in a separate section of the GST portal, depriving the company of an opportunity to respond. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held that the notices had not been uploaded in the regular “View Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal but in the “Additional Notices and Orders” section, which the company had failed to notice.
Stamp Duty Refund Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Original Receipt Is Lost: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Anita Jayant Oswal v. Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps & Ors., with Vineet Kumar Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 5964 of 2019 and 6199 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 604
The Bombay High Court has held that a stamp duty refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the original e-Secured Bank and Treasury Receipt (ESBTR) has been lost, if the payment, loss and non-use of the receipt can be established through official records and other reliable evidence. Justice Amit Borkar observed that the State cannot retain stamp duty that is otherwise refundable under the law merely because the original receipt is unavailable.
No Pre-Deposit Of Disputed GST Interest Required When Entire Tax Is Paid: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Roadway Solutions India Infra. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 14038, 14039 and 14040 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 610
On 27 October, the Bombay High Court held that no pre-deposit of disputed GST interest is required when the entire tax amount has been paid, and that recovery of the remaining dues is deemed to be stayed once the statutory requirements for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal are satisfied. A Bench comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed three writ petitions filed by Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. challenging recovery proceedings for approximately Rs. 22.12 crore towards interest on delayed GST payments.
Case Title : Thakkar Investment & Finance Company v. Chief Controller (Revenue Authority) & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 7229 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 614
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that stamp authorities cannot demand fresh stamp duty on a subsequent conveyance merely because a property's market value has increased. This applies when stamp duty and penalty have already been paid on an earlier Agreement for Sale treated as a deemed conveyance. Justice Amit Borkar quashed an additional stamp duty demand of ₹9.27 lakh against Thakkar Investment & Finance Company. The court held that the subsequent conveyance merely completed the earlier transaction.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Quashes ₹1.68 Crore GST Demand Against SREI Equipment Finance After CIRP
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA No. 6268 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 240
The Calcutta High Court on 1 October allowed SREI Equipment Finance Limited's petition and quashed the Rs. 1.68 crore GST demand raised for alleged excess availment of integrated goods and services tax (IGST) input tax credit on imported goods for FY 2021-22. Justice Aryak Dutt held that tax authorities cannot initiate or continue proceedings for pre-resolution plan dues that were not lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), as approval of the resolution plan extinguishes such liabilities.
Calcutta High Court Quashes ₹25.23 Lakh GST Penalty, Orders Release Of Two Detained Trucks
Case Title : Permender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA No. 3350 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 257
The Calcutta High Court on 14 October quashed GST penalty orders totalling Rs. 25.23 lakh imposed on two detained trucks, holding that the authorities passed the orders beyond the statutory deadline under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Aryak Dutt allowed a petition filed by truck owner Permender Singh, holding that the penalty orders were barred by limitation and passed without jurisdiction.
Chhattisgarh HC
Chhattisgarh High Court Allows GST Appeal Beyond Limitation Subject To 50% Tax Deposit
Case Title : Korba Steel Castings v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Case Number : WPT No. 58 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CHH) 27
The Chhattisgarh High Court has permitted a taxpayer to file a statutory appeal against an ex parte GST assessment order despite the expiry of the limitation period, subject to depositing 50% of the assessed tax liability of ₹8.17 lakh. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas exercised the court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to allow Korba Steel Castings to pursue the statutory remedy. The court observed, "thus, a case for interference by this Court to exercise its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties is made out."
Delhi HC
Delhi HC Quashes 2005-06 VAT Demand Against Builder Over Lack Of Taxable Turnover Rules
Case Title : Vardhman Properties Ltd. v. The Value Addes Tax Officer & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7058/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1047
The Delhi High Court has quashed a Value Added Tax (VAT) demand raised against a builder for the assessment year 2005-06, holding that the levy could not be enforced in the absence of machinery provisions prescribing the manner of determining taxable turnover for works contracts. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain allowed the petition filed by a builder, challenging demand and notice of default assessment.
Case Title : Mangali Impex Ltd v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 441/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1048
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a 2003 show cause notice issued by the Customs Department to Mangali Impex Ltd., holding that the issue of whether the officer who issued the notice was the “proper officer” has already been settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the department. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing a petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch (SIIB), under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation Over Forged Graduation Degree
Case Title : R. K. Logistics v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : CUSAA 120/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1050
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the graduation degree submitted by the broker was forged. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed an appeal filed by R.K. Logistics challenging a CESTAT order which had upheld the revocation of its license, forfeiture of security and imposition of a ₹50,000 penalty.
GST Refund Can Be Withheld During Anti-Evasion Probe Involving Fraud, Malfeasance: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner CGST Delhi South And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15557/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1051
The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of an Anti-Evasion investigation, coupled with the Commissioner's finding of suspected fraud or malfeasance, can justify withholding a GST refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even when no appeal against the order granting the refund is pending. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by an electronics exporter, which had sought release of a refund of over ₹3.15 crore arising from an appellate order in its favour.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M S Micromax Informatics Ltd
Case Number : SERTA 2/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1052
The Delhi High Court has held that ₹154.79 crore deposited by Micromax Informatics Ltd. pursuant to interim orders passed in a patent dispute with Ericsson could not be treated as a payment towards royalty for the purpose of service tax. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the CGST Department against a CESTAT order upholding the dropping of a service tax demand against Micromax.
Already Revoked Customs Broker Licence Cannot Be Revoked Again: Delhi High Court
Case Title : R. K. Logistics v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : CUSAA 119/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1053
The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker licence which has already been revoked cannot be revoked again in separate proceedings, observing that such an action is beyond the statutory provisions and results in multiplicity of litigation. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing the appeal of a proprietorship concern which was granted a Customs Broker license in November 2016.
Case Title : A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9406/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1054
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a ₹47.93 lakh GST demand against a taxpayer, holding that the mere fact that State and Central GST proceedings involved the same supplier does not, by itself, attract the bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) has to be determined by examining the relevant tax period, particular transactions and invoices, precise Input Tax Credit (ITC) involved, allegations in the respective notices and the liability sought to be determined by each authority.
Case Title : Treco Wire India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 583/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1059
The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudication order invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act must disclose the factual basis on which the statutory ingredients of the provision are said to have been satisfied. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that mere reproduction of the statutory language, without supporting particulars, would not demonstrate the requisite application of mind.
Later DRC-01 Date Alone Cannot Make GST SCN Time-Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Aparna Collection v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3449/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1067
The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in generating Form GST DRC-01, an electronic summary of a GST show-cause notice, does not by itself make the underlying notice time-barred if the substantive notice was issued within the prescribed period. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was dealing with two petitions filed by a proprietorship concern challenging proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court Sends Importer To Customs Appellate Remedy Over 9-Year Assessment Delay
Case Title : Kuku Overseas v. Commissioner Of Customs & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7322/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1074
The Delhi High Court has relegated an importer to the statutory appellate remedy after adjudication orders were passed in respect of its provisional customs assessments, which the importer had challenged on the ground of a delay of over nine years. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that the writ petition could not be kept pending merely because the Supreme Court was examining the larger issue concerning delay in adjudication proceedings.
Case Title : Siya Seth Proprietor - Spherion Solutions v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 14095/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1076
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain writ petitions challenging penalties imposed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, observing that questions concerning limitation, the competence of the Proper Officer and the nature of the petitioners' liability should be examined by the statutory appellate authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was dealing with three connected writ petitions arising out of a common adjudication order dated March 25, 2026.
Delhi High Court Upholds VAT Refund To Taxpayer After Return Accepted Under Self-Assessment
Case Title : Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes v. M/S Uno International
Case Number : VAT APPEAL 2/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1077
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) where the return has been accepted under the self-assessment mechanism and no proceedings for assessment, reassessment or audit have been initiated. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes against an order of the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal directing refund to M/s Uno International.
Case Title : Ubaid Khan v. Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 14228/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1078
The Delhi High Court has held that a separate show-cause notice under Section 129DD(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required when the Revisional Authority proposes to enhance the penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation, or to confiscate goods of greater value, but is not required merely when the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Revisional Authority (RA) under Section 129DD of the Customs Act in a case concerning the seizure of 2 kg of gold at the Delhi airport.
Case Title : Ranpreet Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1913/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1079
The Delhi High Court has held that a person cannot belatedly challenge the condition requiring payment of customs duty for release of confiscated gold after having failed to challenge the original adjudication order imposing that condition. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition seeking to quash customs duty of ₹2,71,193 and detention charges of ₹2,02,842 imposed upon Petitioner in respect of a 98-gram gold kada detained at the Delhi airport.
PAN Misuse | Delhi High Court Quashes ₹3.91 Crore Income Tax Demand Against Security Guard
Case Title : Lalit v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9365/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1121
The Delhi High Court has quashed an income tax assessment order raising a demand of approximately ₹3.91 crore against a contractual security guard, observing that the assessment was based solely on portal data without any independent inquiry to establish his connection with the alleged transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary held that the assessment violated the principles of natural justice, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide the material relied upon to Petitioner despite his request and did not properly consider his response alleging misuse of his Permanent Account Number (PAN).
Case Title : Om Shankar Metal (Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sidhant Sharma) v. Assistant Commissioner Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate Division Delhi East Delhi CBIC
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15708/2025
The Delhi High Court on 9 October held that an appellate authority can examine a taxpayer's challenge to a 100% penalty under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, despite the taxpayer having already deposited a penalty equivalent to 15% of the tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to examine Om Shankar Metal's challenge in writ jurisdiction and relegated it to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Vasundhara Sales Corporation Through Its Partner Mr. Sidharth Suragarhia v. M/S Sss Designtek Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Mr. Sachin Handa & Anr.
Case Number : RFA(COMM) 49/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1109
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that whether a C-Form issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), certifying a transaction between registered dealers, amounts to an acknowledgment of debt, must be examined on the facts and evidence. The question cannot be decided at the threshold stage while considering an application to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Case Title : Bajaj Capital Ltd. v. UoI & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4217/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1110
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of service tax authorities issuing clarifications to bypass the statutory mechanism of advance rulings for determining tax liability. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Bajaj Capital Ltd., which had challenged a 2007 communication issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, regarding the applicability of service tax to its activities.
Case Title : Pradeep Industries & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11150/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1111
The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the headquarters of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a challenge against detention of goods at an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Pradeep Industries and others, holding that the entire cause of action had arisen at ICD Dadri, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 694 days Customs Appeal Delay Over Wife's Illness
Case Title : Nancy Trading Company v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad
Case Number : CUSAA 151/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1112
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 694 days in filing a customs appeal, observing that the appellant continued his business despite his wife's illness but made no effort for two years to ascertain the outcome of the proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed the appeal filed against CESTAT order rejecting Appellant's application seeking condonation of delay.
Customs Can't Withhold Detained Goods Without Stay Of Confiscation Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Kahakasha Parvin v. The Commissioner Of Customs And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9311/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1113
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Customs Department has challenged an order before a revisional authority, it cannot withhold detained goods in the absence of any interim protection or stay against the operation of the order. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a woman seeking release of her gold jewellery detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport.
Delhi High Court Allows GST Appeal Without Full Pre-Deposit Over Overlapping Demands
Case Title : Forever Exim India Private Limited Through Its Director Sh. Sanjay Jain v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17753/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1115
The Delhi High Court has permitted a taxpayer to approach the appellate authority with an application seeking exemption from the statutory pre-deposit requirement, to the extent the GST demand is alleged to overlap with an earlier demand. The division bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was hearing a plea by M/s Forever Exim India Private Limited seeking restoration of its writ petition challenging a GST order dated August 30, 2024.
Case Title : Sh. Surendra Kumar v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15022/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1119
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to examine its earlier judgments on GST-related issues and issue appropriate directions to avoid repeated litigation on similar questions of law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar noted that a large number of writ petitions raising substantially similar issues continued to be filed despite its earlier judgments in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST, Delhi Zone & Anr. and Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case Title : MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS LIQUIDATOR MR ANIL KOHLI vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13751/2026
The Delhi High Court will examine whether companies undergoing liquidation can seek exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The issue is whether the requirement can be relaxed in view of the statutory distribution mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar requested Additional Solicitor General of India Raghavendra Shankar to assist the Court in examining the interplay between Section 107(6) of the CGST Act and the IBC, including whether the liquidation framework under Section 53 of the IBC affects the statutory pre deposit requirement.
Time Spent In Writ Petition Not Automatically Excluded From GST Appeal Limitation: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Hans Raj Kaushik, Proprietor, Kaushik Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15157/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1129
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the time spent pursuing a writ petition cannot be automatically excluded while computing the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal against a GST adjudication order. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that if an assessee files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the period during which the writ petition remained pending, the Appellate Authority must consider the application in accordance with law.
Case Title : Blue Star International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3867/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1157
The Delhi High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department to rectify multiple demand summaries generated due to a technical glitch in the GST portal within 15 days. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar also clarified that the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal must be calculated on the demand actually confirmed in the assessment order and not on the erroneously repeated amount.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1158
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 154 days in an appeal filed by the Customs Department, observing that a government department cannot take its own sweet time to move files and then seek condonation of delay. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that administrative negligence and the leisurely movement of files cannot constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the department has its own panel of lawyers.
Case Title : Blue Star International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3867/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1157
The Delhi High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department to rectify multiple demand summaries generated due to a technical glitch in the GST portal within 15 days. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar also clarified that the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal must be calculated on the demand actually confirmed in the assessment order and not on the erroneously repeated amount.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1158
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 154 days in an appeal filed by the Customs Department, observing that a government department cannot take its own sweet time to move files and then seek condonation of delay. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that administrative negligence and the leisurely movement of files cannot constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the department has its own panel of lawyers.
Delhi High Court Says Customs Broker's Licence Need Not Be Revoked For Every CBLR Violation
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) v. Freight Logistics
Case Number : CUSAA 68/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1162
The Delhi High Court has upheld the view that revocation of a customs broker's licence is not warranted for every violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR), and that the punishment must be proportionate to the nature of the violation. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain endorsed the view while dismissing an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging a CESTAT order which had declined to revoke Respondent's licence over its alleged role in an attempted export of prohibited goods to China.
Case Title : Swastik Overseas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13522/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1163
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of imported stainless-steel coils at the Inland Container Depot (ICD), Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, holding that the location of the Customs Commissionerate's headquarters in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court when no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that the dispute concerning the seizure of goods and their provisional release fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, as the goods were detained at ICD Dadri and the proceedings were pending before the customs authority in Uttar Pradesh.
GST Department Cannot Bypass ₹2-Crore Appeal Limit Citing Cascading Effects: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise & Ors. v. Riya Travel and Tours India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1171
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the GST Department against travel companies, holding that the department cannot bypass the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals merely by citing the cascading effect of the issues involved. The division bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that appeals involving amounts below ₹2 crore are not maintainable before the High Court unless they fall within the specific exceptions prescribed under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) instructions.
Timely Generated GST Show Cause Notice Uploaded After Deadline Is Time-Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sikka Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5076/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1172
The Delhi High Court has quashed a GST show-cause notice and the consequential demand order against a Hyundai car dealership, holding that a notice generated within the prescribed time but uploaded on the GST portal after the statutory deadline is time-barred. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that an internally generated notice that remains unconfirmed on the GST system and is not communicated to the taxpayer cannot be treated as validly issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : NTPC Ltd v. SDMC & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4144/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1173
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by NTPC Ltd challenging a municipal electricity tax demand of around ₹197.15 crore on electricity consumed to operate its Badarpur Thermal Power Station. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that electricity used for auxiliary purposes at a power plant constitutes taxable consumption and cannot be treated merely as part of the process of generating electricity.
Case Title : Manoj Kumar, Proprietor, M K Steel Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 50/2026 and W.P.(C) 2528/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1178
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with GST demand orders against a trader accused of availing and passing on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) through invoices allegedly unsupported by genuine supplies of goods, observing that a detailed show-cause notice setting out the alleged transactions and modus operandi did not warrant interference at the writ stage. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Pashar relegated the trader to statutory appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court Asks NDMC To Explain ₹2.51 Crore Additional Property Tax Demand On Khan Market Shop
Case Title : GURVINDER SALUJA v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4427/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1179
The Delhi High Court has directed the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to provide a detailed, period-wise calculation of an additional property tax demand of around ₹2.51 crore raised against a shop in Delhi's Khan Market. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar directed NDMC to furnish the computation within 15 days, along with legible copies of the assessment orders, notices and other documents relied upon to raise the demand.
Case Title : RAJKALPANA TRAVELS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI NORTH COMMISSIONERATE
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6040/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1185
The Delhi High Court has directed a taxpayer to challenge a GST demand of ₹4.49 crore before the statutory appellate authority after it alleged that notices fixing personal hearings during adjudication proceedings were sent to an incorrect email address. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that the controversy concerning the service of hearing notices, including whether they were communicated to the correct registered email address, could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : OYSTER STEEL AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE VII GROUP 61 CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AUDIT I
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15619/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1190
The Delhi High Court has held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration does not bar the authorities from auditing records for the period during which the registration had been granted. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed, “Where a registration had been granted and had not yet been cancelled during the period proposed for audit, that factual nexus satisfies Section 65 even if the registration is subsequently cancelled retrospectively. “
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Hiteshbhai Pravinchandra Kapashi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 12304 of 2019, 12305 of 2019, 863 of 2020 & 11528 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 143
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a Municipal Commissioner cannot use a carpet-area cut-off to move commercial properties from one property-tax category to another without prior State Government approval. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati quashed a March 27, 2015, office order issued by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, which treated shops and showrooms with a carpet area of more than 35 square metres as NU-1 properties. NU-1 properties carry a multiplier of 5, while NU-2 properties carry a multiplier of 3.
Gujarat High Court Quashes ₹43.43 Crore GST Demand Against Amul
Case Title : Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7085 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 151
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed an IGST demand of ₹43.43 crore against Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, popularly known as Amul. The court held that failure to allocate common expenses to branches through cross-charging does not, by itself, establish fraud or suppression of facts to evade GST. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati ruled that the tax authorities had failed to establish the conditions required to invoke Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh, Proprietor of M/s Mustufa Sales Agency v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14717 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 153
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax to explain how the department's portal allowed an officer to issue three personal hearing notices on the same day. Each notice fixed a different date and time for the hearing. The court warned that failure to file the report by the next hearing would invite strictures against the authorities. The notices were digitally signed within an interval of one minute and 40 seconds.
GST Authorities Must Give Taxpayers Reasonable Time To Furnish Audit Documents: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : HuberGroup India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14772 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 158
Tax authorities must inform taxpayers within a reasonable time if documents submitted for a GST audit are incomplete, the Gujarat High Court has held. “However, we are of the opinion that, where a registered person furnishes documents pursuant to a notice issued under Section 65 of the CGST Act but some documents remain outstanding, the tax authorities are required to inform the registered person of the missing or outstanding documents within a reasonable time, so that the audit can be completed at the earliest,” the court observed.
Gujarat High Court Says Delayed Appellate Order Upload Can't Bar GST Refund, Allows ₹5.41 Lakh Claim
Case Title : Panila Chem Limited & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 4610 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 158
The Gujarat High Court on 23 October allowed Panila Chem Limited's petition and treated the date of uploading Form GST APL-04 as the relevant date for considering its refund claim, given the peculiar facts of the case A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that a delayed upload of an appellate order's summary on the GST portal cannot defeat a refund directed by the appellate authority in exceptional circumstances.
Starch Used In Liquid Glucose Production Qualifies For DFIA Benefits Under SION: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Sanstar Bio Polymers Ltd
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 804 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 160
The Gujarat High Court on 21 October held that starch used as an immediate input in manufacturing liquid glucose concentrate qualifies for duty-free import benefits under the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme when classified under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) Entry E22, rather than E76, which specifies maize. A Division Bench comprising Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Nirzar S. Desai dismissed the Revenue Department's appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order in favour of Sanstar Bio Polymers Ltd., holding that Customs authorities could not invoke Sections 113(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, without wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in obtaining the DFIA authorisations.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Rejection Of Correction Plea Cannot Be Challenged In VAT Revision: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Super Power Steels v. The Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 35
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 12 October held that Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act does not permit a revision petition against an order rejecting a correction application under Section 47(1). A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Romesh Verma dismissed a revision petition filed by Super Power Steels against the Tax Tribunal's rejection of its application to correct an earlier order.
Case Title : Aditya Industries v/s State of H.P. & others
Case Number : CWP No.3962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 37
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that tax authorities invoking Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (HPGST) Act, 2017, must clearly specify whether the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Court observed that these grounds must be substantiated by the allegations in the show cause notice, and the statutory provision cannot be invoked merely by reproducing its language without establishing the factual basis for doing so.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Bimal Poddar @ Bimal Kumar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number : Cr. Revision No. 490 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JHAR) 18
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of a firm partner for deliberately misdescribing goods to evade commercial tax under the Bihar Finance Act. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava found that the discrepancies in the description of goods were deliberate and intended to evade tax. The court observed: "Perusal of the material exhibits reveals that there are some discrepancies with regard to goods which are clearly apparent and these discrepancies with regard to goods has been intentionally made to evade commercial tax."
Karnataka HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/s Jeans Knit Private Limited
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 966 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 185
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Revenue cannot extend the statutory limitation for filing a GST appeal by relying on delayed intra-departmental communication of an adjudication order. It held that the limitation period has to be reckoned from the issuance of the order and cannot be left open-ended. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed that Section 107(2) of the CGST Act gives the Revenue six months from the communication of the adjudication order to apply to the appellate authority, while Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only for a further period of one month.
Case Title : N.S. Ganesh v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.19486 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 204
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to refund ₹15.41 lakh deducted from the refund due to an iron ore auction purchaser after the auction failed because the ore was not available at the site. The Court also awarded interest at 8% per annum on the amount of ₹2.89 crore deposited by the purchaser, holding that the State cannot retain money without providing the corresponding consideration.
Case Title : Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation & Others v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WP 33292/2026
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought the State Government's response to a challenge by television broadcasters to the 2% cess imposed on TV channels operating in Karnataka. The court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the broadcasters in connection with the levy. The petition has been filed by the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), along with broadcasters including JioStar India and Zee Entertainment Enterprises, challenging the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024, its 2025 amendment, the rules framed under the legislation, and a notification bringing the Act into force from September 30, 2026.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Upholds GST Recovery Against Satwa Solutions For Failure To Raise Timely Objection
Case Title : Satwa Solutions v. State Tax Officer
Case Number : WA NO. 1886 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 192
The Kerala High Court on 26 September refused to interfere with GST recovery proceedings against Satwa Solutions and upheld the dismissal of its writ petition challenging the proceedings arising from a statutory notice and subsequent final order. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji held that the taxpayer had failed to raise its objection to the notice at the appropriate stage.
Kerala High Court Quashes GST Notice Issued Before Audit Findings Were Finalised
Case Title : The Alleppey Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 30354 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 194
The Kerala High Court has held that a GST show cause notice issued on the basis of preliminary audit observations, before the audit findings attain finality, cannot be sustained. The court also held that tax authorities must consider a taxpayer's reply to discrepancies before finalising the audit findings. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was hearing a petition filed by The Alleppey Company Ltd., challenging a GST show cause notice issued despite its requests for additional time to respond to audit observations.
Case Title : V.P. Sugathan v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 42585 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 195
The Kerala High Court has held that a supplier's statutory obligation to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not automatically entitle the supplier to recover the tax separately from the recipient of the service. “The liability of a supplier to discharge the tax payable under the statute and the question as to whether the supplier is entitled to pass on the burden of such tax to the recipient are distinct and separate matters," the court ruled.
Enhanced Court Fee Applies To Tax Disputes Initiated On Or After April 1, 2016: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Mohammed Rafi v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 203
The Kerala High Court has held that the enhanced additional court fee of 1% of the amount involved in a dispute applies to tax appeals and revision petitions only when the underlying dispute commenced on or after April 1, 2016. “Thus, the lis, in matters of taxation, commences when the taxing authority being not satisfied with the correctness of the return filed by the assessee, calls for materials or evidence to justify the claim of the assessee. If a notice has been issued by the assessing officer pursuant to the return filed by the assessee, a lis can be held to have commenced and the right of appeal, including the obligation to pay the court fee in the appeal, as existing on that date when the lis commenced, becomes vested right.” Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Hindustan Abhikaran, A Registered Partnership Firm & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 8169 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 77
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a demand notice issued by the Khandwa Municipal Corporation threatening to auction a landlord's property for recovery of property tax, despite the Corporation being aware of an earlier High Court ruling on recovery of dues from rented premises. The earlier ruling had held that the Corporation could not lock rented premises to recover property tax. It also clarified that recovery from a tenant could be effected through attachment of rent due in respect of the property.
Madras HC
Case Title : The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise v. The Senior Regional Manager
Case Number : WA(MD) No. 2147 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 288
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order setting aside a ₹2.63 crore service tax demand against the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC). The demand was raised for the construction of scientific storage godowns used primarily to store paddy procured from farmers for distribution through the Public Distribution System A Division Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dileep Kumar held that TNCSC qualifies as a “governmental authority” under the Mega Exemption Notification and that the construction of its scientific storage godowns is covered by the exemption available for post-harvest storage infrastructure for agricultural produce.
Purchase Order Date Cannot Determine Import Date For Project Import Duty Benefit: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Vatech Wabag Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs- GR-6
Case Number : WP No. 22752 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 290
The Madras High Court has ruled that a purchase order placed with a foreign supplier before registration of a project contract does not, by itself, determine whether imported goods qualify for the Project Import benefit. The relevant date is when the goods are imported into India, subject to the other requirements under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Customs Broker Suspensions, Says 'Immediate Action' Must Be Timely
Case Title : Aala Shipping Services Pvt Ltd v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P No. 21646 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 291
The Madras High Court has set aside the suspension of licenses of 11 Customs Brokers, holding that the power to order “immediate suspension” cannot be exercised after an unexplained or substantial delay. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that while “immediate” does not mean that the suspension must be ordered instantaneously, the Customs authorities must act with reasonable promptness once the material necessary for taking action is available.
GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Has No Impact On ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Of CGST Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title : Syed Ahamed Ibrahim v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (RAL) (FAC), Ambattur Zone
Case Number : WP No. 33980 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 296
The Madras High Court has held that making the mandatory pre-deposit for filing a GST appeal does not, by itself, require unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) blocked under Rule 86A of the GST Rules. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy clarified that although the pre-deposit results in a deemed stay on recovery of the balance demand under Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), it does not affect a separate blocking order under Rule 86A, and disposed of a petition filed by Syed Ahamed Ibrahim, proprietor of Tvl. Royal Steel Traders, challenging the blocking of Rs. 28,15,364 in his Electronic Credit Ledger.
Madras High Court Quashes GST Notice To Queen Mira School, Says Assessment Must Precede Recovery
Case Title : The Managing Director, M/s.Queen Mira International School v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(MD) NO. 27719 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 300
The Madras High Court on 24 September quashed a show cause notice issued to Queen Mira International School, while granting the department liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Justice C. Saravanan held that the GST authorities must first assess the tax liability of an unregistered person under the prescribed statutory mechanism before proceeding against such person for tax recovery.
Time-Barred GST Refund Claim Cannot Trigger Deficiency Memo: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. L.S. Pacific wood Tech pvt. ltd. v. Commercial Tax officer
Case Number : WP No. 32615 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 301
The Madras High Court has held that a GST deficiency memo cannot be issued merely because a refund application is time-barred, as such a memo is meant to address a remediable defect in the application. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on 1 September, disposed of a deficiency memo issued to L.S. Pacific Wood Tech Pvt. Ltd. after it sought a refund under Section 54 of the GST enactments. The Bench observed that “a deficiency memo cannot be issued on the ground that the refund application is time barred.”
Customs Dispute Over Car, Cash Confiscation Go To CESTAT, Not Revision Authority: Madras High Court
Case Title : S. Michael Kennadi v. The Revision Authority Government of India
Case Number : W.P.(MD) No. 22231 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 303
The Madras High Court on 1 October held that a customs dispute concerning confiscation of a vehicle and Indian currency seized in connection with alleged gold smuggling has to be challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a revision application before the Central Government. Justice C. Saravanan granted S. Michael Kennadi liberty to approach the CESTAT against the First Appellate Authority's order, while declining to interfere with the Revision Authority's decision rejecting his revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act.
Case Title : M/s. Shree Velu Builders Private limited v. State Tax officer
Case Number : WP No. 38341 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 311
The Madras High Court has set aside a ₹5.50 crore GST demand against Shree Velu Builders Private Limited, holding that tax cannot be levied on projected revenue from two building blocks merely because their plans had been approved. The court noted that construction had not commenced in either block. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remanded the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the company depositing ₹50 lakh within four weeks.
Customs Cannot Detain Cattle Feed As Prohibited Goods Without Sufficient Grounds: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Rajarajendiran
Case Number : W.A.Nos.2931 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 313
The Madras High Court on 28 September held that Customs authorities cannot treat imported cattle feed as prohibited goods merely on allegations of diversion for human consumption, particularly when laboratory reports indicate that the goods are unfit for human consumption. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and S. Raveekumar upheld the direction to release the consignment against sufficient indemnity in an appeal filed by Customs authorities against S.R. Rajarajendiran, proprietor of Asia Gate Exims, while allowing adjudication proceedings to continue in accordance with law.
Dupattas Made Of Woven Fabric Exempt From Tax As Fibres Under TNVAT Act: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. Vedant Fashions Pvt Ltd v. The State Of Tamilnadu
Case Number : TC Nos. 50 to 52 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 318
The Madras High Court on 7 October held that dupattas made of woven fabric fall under the exemption for textile fabrics under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006, and cannot be classified as fibres for taxation. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Rajasekar allowed three tax case revisions filed by Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the 4% tax levy on dupattas for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s. Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd
Case Number : CMA No. 1374 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 319
The Madras High Court on 12 October held that payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) on fit-out charges does not automatically exempt the same transaction from service tax. Further, a portion of the consideration for leased office premises must be attributed to fit-outs provided under the lease agreements. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan upheld CENVAT credit claimed by Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd. on specified input services, while deciding an appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai South, against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Madras High Court Upholds Barytes Export Curbs, Orders DGFT To Decide Licence Plea In 4 Weeks
Case Title : Gimpex Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. No. 29394 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 326
The Madras High Court has upheld the Centre's decision to restrict the export of certain grades of Barytes, a mineral used in industries including oil and gas drilling. It held that the government can regulate exports to conserve scarce mineral reserves. The bench further directed the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to decide a company's pending request for permission to export its existing stock within four weeks.
Case Title : M/s SPM Arts LLP v. M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures and 3 others
Case Number : C.S(COMM DIV) No. 92 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 328
The Madras High Court has directed film production company Shri Abishek Pictures and its partner Abhishek Venkat Nama to jointly and severally pay ₹1.22 crore to SPM Arts LLP towards GST dues arising from the assignment of dubbing rights for the Telugu film Saakshyam. Justice P.B. Balaji held that the production firm, having received the entire consideration of ₹7.5 crore and agreed to bear the GST liability under the assignment deed, was responsible for paying the applicable tax.
Case Title : M/s. EMC Limited v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.25527 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 331
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that a company sold as a going concern during liquidation cannot claim that its liabilities are automatically extinguished under the clean-slate principle of insolvency law. Justice C. Saravanan observed that a buyer acquiring a corporate debtor as a going concern takes over its assets and liabilities as a package, and cannot avoid liabilities merely because the company has undergone liquidation.
Patna HC
Case Title : Shashi Kant Singh v. The Union of India Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No.3060 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)30
The Patna High Court has directed the Central GST and Central Excise Department to refund ₹1,24,175 to a petitioner after finding that the amount paid towards the mandatory pre-deposit for a service tax appeal was deposited twice The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra also directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of the second receipt until payment, along with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
Case Title : Ingram Micro-India Private Limited v. The State of Bihar
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No.650 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 33
The Patna High Court on 9 October held that mobile chargers sold with cellular phones in composite packs attract VAT at the residual rate of 13.5%, as they qualify as independent accessories rather than parts of the phones. A Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh also held that toner and cartridges do not qualify for lower VAT rates applicable to computer peripherals and their parts and accessories, and dismissed appeals filed by Ingram Micro-India Private Limited against a common order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Supplier's GST Default Cannot Automatically Trigger ITC Reversal: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another & connected cases
Case Number : CWP-34296-2024 (O&M) & connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 58
On 1 October, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be mechanically reversed merely because a supplier failed to deposit GST with the Government or because the supplier's registration was subsequently cancelled, including retrospectively. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes actual payment of tax to the Government a condition for claiming ITC. However, it clarified that the provision cannot be applied in isolation.
Case Title : Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : CWP - 34296 - 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 58
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act but held that the provision cannot be used mechanically to make a purchasing dealer reverse input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, cannot be treated as a standalone provision to automatically shift the seller's tax default to the buyer.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of ₹47.45 Lakh Cash Seized Over Alleged Unaccounted Sales
Case Title : Bhagwan Tirthani v. Principal Commissioner, General Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2128/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 55
The Rajasthan High Court on 14 September directed the GST department to release Rs. 47.45 lakh seized during a search of residential premises, along with applicable interest. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar held that Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act does not authorise the seizure of cash merely on suspicion that it represents proceeds from unaccounted sales.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Gudla Vanaja and others v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case Number : W.P.Nos.20397 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 76
The Telangana High Court has recently held that GST show-cause notices and adjudication orders cannot be invalidated merely because downloaded PDF copies do not display a visible digital signature. This is provided they have been electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the GST common portal. “The case of the petitioners based upon the contention that the PDF format does not contain the visible digital signature of the proper officer is untenable in law,” the Full Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice N. Tukaramji and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin ruled.
CESTAT
Bagasse-Generated Electricity Sold To State Utility Not Liable For 6% CENVAT Reversal: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Commissioner of Central GST, Kolhapur CGST Commissionerate v. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85501 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 594
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that electricity generated from bagasse and sold to a state electricity authority cannot attract the 6% payment under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal observed that “electricity produced from bagasse and sold to electricity authority of State Government cannot be subjected to payment of amount equal to 6% of the value of electricity sold by them under Rule 6(3)”.
Case Title : M/s SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70004 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 595
On 1 October, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that tax paid by mistake on an exempt service cannot be retained by the Revenue. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary directed the Revenue to refund Rs. 36,92,166 to SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. with 12% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit until payment. It also directed that the refund be made within three months.
Case Title : M/s Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeal-I), Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75146 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KOL) 596
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside a ₹70.45 lakh Service Tax demand on grants received by the Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) from Central and State Governments. The tribunal held that the grants were not consideration for providing a taxable service and were more in the nature of reimbursement. The bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan found no evidence that ICC provided “Business Exhibition Service” to the governments or raised invoices and received the grants as consideration. ICC was also required to account for how the grants were spent and submit utilisation certificates.
CENVAT Credit On Reverse Charge Service Tax To Be Refunded In Cash Under CGST Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Northern Coalfields Limited v. Commissioner of Central GST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 54790, 54791, 54792, 54795 & 54796 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 597
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that any CENVAT credit accruing to Northern Coalfields Ltd. on payment of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism has to be refunded in cash under Section 142 of the CGST Act after the GST regime came into force. The ruling came in a batch of five appeals filed by Northern Coalfields against service tax demands on payments made to the Madhya Pradesh government towards Rural Infrastructure and Road Development Tax and Forest Transit Fee.
Case Title : Amsons Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 87945 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 598
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 October held that an appeal cannot be rejected for non-production of proof of mandatory pre-deposit when the appellate authority itself has recorded that the required amount was deposited. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside an order rejecting an appeal filed by Amsons Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits.
Providing Access To Government Data Through Its Portal Not OIDAR Service: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : MP Online Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50418 of 2017, 51646 of 2018 & 52763 o19
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 599
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside service tax demands against MP Online Ltd., holding that the company did not provide Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services merely by operating a portal through which Madhya Pradesh Government data could be accessed. The Bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that MP Online only provided a network through which government data could be accessed by government officers and citizens.
Case Title : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76944 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 600
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that civil work billed according to the work performed could not be treated as “Manpower Service” where the contractor's billing was not based on the number of workers or man-days deployed. The tribunal found that the consideration was linked to the civil work carried out at the railway siding, rather than the manpower deployed.
Case Title : M/s Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30185 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 601
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that deletion of acid value and total carotenoid parameters from a customs exemption notification did not mean that refined or processed palmolein would qualify as “Crude Palm Oil” for concessional customs duty. The Bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed that the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods failed to meet parameters that were no longer part of the notification. The importer, however, still had to establish that the goods were actually Crude Palm Oil to claim the benefit.
Case Title : Shri R. Dewakar v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport, Imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 263 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 602
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 October held that importing a motorcycle in separate parts through different ports cannot defeat the customs duty and restrictions applicable to a complete vehicle when the evidence establishes that the consignments form a single motorcycle. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar partially allowed an appeal filed by R. Dewakar, proprietor of Sri Vinayaka Enterprises, against the customs demand on a Suzuki Hayabusa that he imported in dismantled form through Chennai and Tuticorin ports.
Contract Manufacture Of Alcoholic Liquor For Another Entity Attracts Service Tax: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Agribiotech Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 52725, 52726, 52727 of 2019; 50235 of 2021; 51010 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 603
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has held that manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption undertaken by one entity on behalf of another is liable to service tax after alcoholic liquor was excluded from the negative-list entry with effect from June 1, 2015. Relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the tribunal held, "We find that section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 deals with the negative list of the services. The sub clause act effectively upto 31.05.2015 which described as “any process amounting to manufacture for production of goods w.e.f. 01.06.2015 it stipulates that service by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture for production of goods excluding liquor in human consumption which means that the manufacture of production of goods of alcoholic liquor for human consumption is outside the ambit of the exemption from payment of service tax”.
GTA Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded From Transporter If Recipient Paid Under RCM: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s North East Carriers Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Guwahati
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75725 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 604
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that service tax on Goods Transport Agency services was payable by recipient companies under the reverse charge mechanism where they paid the freight. The court held that demanding the same tax from the transporter again would amount to double taxation where the recipients had discharged the liability. “Thus, we find that as per notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, in respect of transportation of goods by road rendered by the Appellant, the liability to pay service tax is on the receiver of the service, who paid the freight,” the tribunal observed.
Tax Refund Cannot Be Claimed Without Challenging Or Modifying Self-Assessment: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai West (with connected appeals filed by the Revenue).
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 87176 of 2018 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 605
On 8 October, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a taxpayer cannot claim a service tax refund solely on the basis of a subsequent departmental clarification granting an exemption. The taxpayer must first challenge or modify the original self-assessment before seeking a refund of nearly Rs. 5.92 crore. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava dismissed five appeals filed by Sodexo India and allowed five appeals filed by the Revenue in a dispute over service tax on services provided to educational institutions.
Case Title : M/s Promac Engineering Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20993 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 607
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that TDS paid separately by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax purposes. This applies when the agreement requires the Indian company to bear the tax. A Bench of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside a service tax demand of ₹13.49 lakh against Promac Engineering Industries Limited. The demand related to TDS on payments to a Japanese company for technical know-how and engineering assistance.
Service Tax On Construction Services Payable On Actual Receipts, Not Accruals: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Britannia Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75351 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 606
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has remanded a ₹11,98,511 service tax demand against Britannia Engineering Ltd., holding that liability for the relevant period must be calculated on actual receipts rather than accruals. The dispute covers financial years 2006-07 to 2008-09, spanning the introduction of Works Contract Service as a separate taxable category from June 1, 2007. “Service tax is to be discharged on the receipt of the amount,” a bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed.
Case Title : Crescent Foundry Company Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76559 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 608
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has ruled that goods re-imported for repairs cannot be replaced with freshly manufactured goods to claim customs duty exemption, even if they match in description and quality. Dismissing Crescent Foundry Company Private Limited's appeal, the tribunal held that Notification No. 158/95-Cus. requires the same goods to be re-exported after repairs or reconditioning.
CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied On Works Contract Goods Outside Service Tax Levy: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Toshiba JSW Power Systems (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40612 and 40613 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 609
On 9 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai, held that the Explanation to Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, does not bar CENVAT credit on duty-paid capital goods transferred under a works contract, as the value of such goods falls outside the service tax levy. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed appeals filed by Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited and set aside the denial of CENVAT credit, interest and penalties. It also held that the Department could not deny credit merely because the goods became part of an immovable plant.
CESTAT Kolkata Allows CENVAT Credit On Sales Commission For Goods Sold Through Depots
Case Title : Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 77334 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 610
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that commission paid to agents for procuring orders, arranging dispatches, and collecting payments for goods sold through a manufacturer's depots is eligible for CENVAT credit where the depot is the place of removal. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the commission services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title : Lufthansa German Airlines v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50004 of 2020 and Service Tax Appeal No. 50849 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 611
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled that cancellation fees collected by Lufthansa German Airlines as compensation for passengers failing to honour their travel commitments are not taxable as consideration for a separate service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. “In short, the cancellation charges are in the form of a compensation for failure of a contract entered into that the passenger would fly and the airlines would carry him to his destination. It is not a consideration and there is no separate agreement with an intent that the passenger would default so that airline would get some compensation,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Rissala Electric Motors (P) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52227 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 612
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has denied concessional customs duty to an importer of electric two-wheelers in completely knocked down (CKD) condition because the kits lacked components required under the applicable exemption notification. A Bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, however, upheld their classification as complete electric two-wheelers under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Service Tax Orders Against A.P. Constructions, Orders Fresh Adjudication
Case Title : A.P. Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise; P.S. Shivakumar v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41344 of 2016, 40299 of 2022 and 40300 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 613
On Thursday, 15 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai, set aside three service tax orders against A.P. Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, directing fresh adjudication within 90 days after examining the contractual arrangements, applicable statutory provisions and supporting evidence. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed all three appeals by way of remand, holding that the Department must examine the nature of construction contracts, the terms of joint development agreements and the evidence supporting reverse-charge liabilities before confirming the demands.
Tender Documents Sale Not A Service, No Service Tax Payable On Fees: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50014 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 614
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 13 October held that fees collected for selling tender documents are not subject to service tax, as the sale of documents does not constitute a taxable service. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed the appeal filed by Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited against a service tax demand of Rs. 72,071, along with interest and penalty.
Amounts Collected From Dhabas Under 'Yatri Plaza Yojna' Not Taxable To Service Tax: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70571 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 615
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹3.85 lakh against the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) over amounts collected from roadside dhabas under its “Yatri Plaza Yojna”. The tribunal held that the arrangement was a public welfare measure to ensure passenger safety and convenience, not a commercial transaction involving a taxable service.
Water Supply Agreement Is Sale Of Water, Not Taxable Service: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (Audit), Indore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55329 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 616
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently ruled that an agreement allowing an industrial unit to draw water directly from a water body can constitute a sale of water rather than an assignment of the right to use natural resources. The tribunal set aside a service tax demand of ₹7.29 crore against Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), holding that the agreement was for the sale of water.
Mere Introduction To Freight Forwarder Does Not Prove Intent To Evade Customs Duty: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Shri Chirag Jayant Shah v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.40978 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 617
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October held that merely introducing an importer to a freight forwarder does not establish involvement in customs duty evasion or justify a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar set aside the Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on Chirag Jayant Shah, an assistant manager at A.E. Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for allegedly facilitating the import of undervalued branded glass stones.
CESTAT Chennai Remands Ramco Cements' CENVAT Dispute, Says Actual Nature Of Work Must Be Examined
Case Title : M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41539 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 618
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October set aside the CENVAT credit demand against Ramco Cements Ltd. and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the services contractor-wise and quantify the demand falling within the normal limitation period. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that machinery installation, repair and maintenance services cannot be excluded from CENVAT credit merely because they relate to a plant expansion project. The eligibility of such services must be determined by examining the actual work performed under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title : Reliable Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75754 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 619
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that commission earned from a Vodafone SIM distributorship was exempt from service tax under a 2012 notification. The tribunal also set aside the demand on plastic dustbins and portable toilets supplied to local bodies and State Governments, holding that the transactions involved sales of goods on which VAT had been paid. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Reliable Enterprises, a sole proprietorship based in Patna.
Case Title : Yash Raj Films Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85323 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 620
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled that overseas Local Area Representatives (LARs) who arrange third-party services for film shoots abroad act as intermediaries. Since the place of provision of these intermediary services was outside India, Yash Raj Films Private Limited was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal set aside a demand of ₹46.41 crore, along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Allows ₹3.91 Lakh CENVAT Benefit To HUL, Says Job Workers' Tax Exemption No Bar
Case Title : Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41315 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 621
On 22 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, set aside the denial of Rs. 3,91,207 in CENVAT credit to Hindustan Unilever Limited on service tax paid by job workers, along with the consequential interest and penalty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the company's appeal, holding that Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which bars payment of duty on absolutely exempt goods, does not apply to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Chennai Allows Royal Enfield's CENVAT Credit Appeals, Sets Aside ₹51.47 Lakh Penalty
Case Title : M/s. Royal Enfield (A Unit of Eicher Motors Limited) v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 42248 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 622
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October allowed appeals filed by Royal Enfield and set aside demands for reversal of CENVAT credit and penalties imposed on the company. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the absence of a separate Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration did not, by itself, disentitle the company from claiming credit on eligible input services.
CESTAT Delhi Upholds ₹2.89 Lakh Tax Demand On Transit Mixer Hiring, Rejects GTA Service Claim
Case Title : M/s. Shri Sai RMC v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-E, Behror (Alwar)
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.51146 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 623
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 16 October upheld a service tax demand of Rs. 2.89 lakh against Shri Sai RMC for hiring transit mixer (TM) machines, holding that the transaction was not covered under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal, finding that the case was covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in K.P. Mozika v. ONGC on the distinction between the transfer of the right to use goods and the provision of a service.
CESTAT Delhi Remands Schlumberger's ₹5.82 Crore Tax Dispute Over ONGC Training And Offshore Services
Case Title : Commissioner of Service Tax v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 59448 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 624
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 21 October set aside an order dropping service tax demands against Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It held that the taxability of training services provided to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and services connected with offshore oil and gas exploration required further examination.
Royalty Paid To Partners For Trademark Use Not Taxable Without Service Relationship: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shri Ananda Paul, Partner v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Bolpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75208 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 625
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, on 14 October held that royalty received by partners for allowing their partnership firm to use a jointly owned trademark does not attract service tax in the absence of a service provider-recipient relationship. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar allowed four appeals filed by the partners of Radhashyam Tirthabasi Paul against the confirmation of service tax demands on royalty received for the use of the trademark “Shankha Bidi”. It held:
Hospital Food Contractor Liable To Pay Service Tax As Outdoor Caterer: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : Annapoorna Health Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 971 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 625
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held that a contractor supplying food from hospital premises can be liable to pay service tax as an outdoor caterer, even where VAT has been paid on the goods component. “Based on the above definitions a person undertaking catering in his own premises or premises offered by the clients and who supplies food directly or indirectly falls under the definition of outdoor caterer,” the tribunal observed.
Delayed Retraction Can't Undermine Service Tax Demand Backed By Signed Digital Records: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East v. AGC Reality Private Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51492 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 627
On 23 October the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi held that delayed retraction of statements admitting unaccounted cash receipts from flat buyers cannot discredit a service tax demand when the statements were reaffirmed during the investigation and corroborated by signed printouts of electronic records recovered from the company. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the Revenue's appeal against AGC Reality Private Limited and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order overturning the service tax demand.
Gross Contract Value Alone Cannot Prove Service Tax Collection From Customers: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : Skilltech Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20619 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 628
On 23 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Bangalore held that receipt of the gross contract amount does not, by itself, establish that a service provider collected service tax from its customers, particularly when the services were exempt from tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside the order rejecting the refund claim of Skilltech Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of unjust enrichment and remanded the matter for verification of the relevant documents.
Exempt Basic Customs Duty Cannot Be Added To Import Value For IGST Calculation: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s TGI International v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85502 of 2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 629
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled that customs duty exempted under an applicable notification cannot be added at the normal tariff rate to the value of imported goods for calculating Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), where the importer has satisfied the conditions for the exemption. The tribunal found that TGI International was entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Notification No. 19/2015-Customs dated April 1, 2015, after complying with the applicable requirements of the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme. Although the importer claimed zero BCD, the customs electronic system added BCD at the normal tariff rate of 20% when calculating IGST at 5% on the transaction value. The tribunal held that the BCD claimed as zero had to be considered while calculating IGST, rather than adding duty at the normal tariff rate.
CESTAT Allahabad Quashes ₹2.16 Lakh Demand Against Doccel For Misclassification, No Suppression
Case Title : M/s Doccel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70284 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 630
On 23 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, set aside a service tax demand against Doccel Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the department cannot demand service tax without correctly classifying the services provided. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava also held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a specific finding that the company suppressed facts with the intention to evade tax.
Case Title : Smrithi Constructions v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40540 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 631
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on Wednesday held that an educational institution's income exceeding its expenditure cannot, by itself, establish that its buildings are used primarily for commercial purposes. Setting aside a ₹3.31 crore service tax demand against Smrithi Constructions, the Tribunal held that the Department had failed to establish that buildings constructed for educational institutions and a hospital were used primarily for commerce or industry.
Different Views On Import Classification Do Not Establish Broker Misconduct: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Anubhav Cargo Movers v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51013 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 632
On 28 October, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a difference of opinion over the classification of imported goods does not, by itself, establish misconduct by a Customs Broker. A Bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed Anubhav Cargo Movers' appeal against the revocation of its Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of its security deposit and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Missing Invoices Alone Do Not Prove Smuggling, Sets Aside Gold Confiscation
Case Title : Mohammed Abdul Razzak v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30169 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 633
On 29 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that the absence of purchase invoices for gold does not, by itself, establish that the gold was smuggled into India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the confiscation of 377.08 grams of gold worth Rs. 19.12 lakh and the penalty of Rs. 3.83 lakh that Customs authorities imposed on Mohammed Abdul Razzak, proprietor of Iqbal Jewellers, under the Customs Act, 1962.
Income Tax Records Alone Cannot Establish Service Tax Liability: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Orissa Bengal Transport Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75250 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 634
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that receipts reflected in Income Tax records cannot, by themselves, establish that the amounts represent consideration for taxable services. It set aside a ₹3.03 crore service tax demand against Orissa Bengal Transport Co. “The mere reflection of receipts in the appellant's Income Tax records may furnish a basis for initiating an inquiry, but cannot, by itself, directly establish either the taxable character of those receipts or the precise nature of the services allegedly rendered,” the tribunal held.
Service Tax Demand Requires Proper Comparison Of Audited Accounts And ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s My Car Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70213 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 635
On Thursday, 29 October, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a service tax demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of differences between figures recorded in financial statements and tax returns without properly examining the records. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava allowed an appeal filed by My Car Pvt. Ltd. against a service tax demand, holding that the department could not selectively rely on discrepancies in CENVAT credit figures while ignoring other details relating to tax liability and payments.
Case Title : Instamod Air Pipe Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76148 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 636
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹12.59 lakh customs duty demand and an equivalent penalty imposed on an importer for allegedly wrongly claiming preferential duty benefits under the India-Malaysia trade agreement. The tribunal found that the adjudicating authority relied on emails that were neither mentioned in the show-cause notice nor provided to the importer for an explanation.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹3.03 Crore Demand Against Ford India Over Premature CENVAT Credit
Case Title : M/s. Ford India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41610 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 637
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 29 October set aside the denial of CENVAT credit to Ford India Private Limited, holding that its Sanand unit was eligible to avail the credit upon commencement of production and that taking credit before receiving the capital goods amounted, at most, to premature availment. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed: “It is also an undenied fact that upon commencement of production activity, Sanand unit was eligible to avail the cenvat credit and hence, at the most, it may amount to availment of cenvat credit prematurely i.e. prior to the receipt of the capital goods.”
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Customs Department's Bid To Classify Imported Supari As Split Areca Nuts
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Guru Krupa Traders
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40433 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 638
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has rejected the Customs Department's attempt to reclassify imported unflavoured supari as split areca nuts, upholding the importer's declared classification. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the Department had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that the goods should be classified as split areca nuts.
GSTAT
Wrongful ITC Availment Alone Cannot Justify Tax Evasion Proceedings: Kolkata GSTAT
Case Title : Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate v. Power Tech Global Private Limited
Case Number : APL/62/KLK/2026, APL/74/KLK/2026 and APL/75/KLK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (KOL) 46
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has held that invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires material establishing deliberate suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement with an intent to evade tax, and cannot rest merely on an allegation of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Two Member Bench comprising Judicial Member S.G. Chattopadhyay and Technical Member Bijoy Kumar Kar partly allowed the Revenue's appeals against Power Tech Global Private Limited, while holding that the proceedings under Section 74 were unsustainable and directing re-determination of the liability under Section 75(2).
Taxpayer Can Seek GST Refund Even If Not Party To Case Striking Down Levy: GSTAT Surat
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise v. M/s Filatex India Limited
Case Number : APL/11/SRT/2026 to APL/56/SRT/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (SUR) 45
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), at Surat, has held that a taxpayer can claim a refund of tax paid under a levy subsequently declared unconstitutional, even if the taxpayer was not a party to the proceedings in which the levy was struck down. “Therefore, a taxpayer may claim refund of tax collected under a levy subsequently declared ultra vires or unconstitutional in a judgment even if he was not a party to such judgment,” the tribunal held.
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Alankar Cinema
Case Number : NAPA/124/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 47
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench at Delhi, has held that a cinema operator cannot rely on State Government price regulations to avoid passing on the benefit of a GST rate reduction to viewers. A single member coram of Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, observed that the orders relied on by Alankar Cinema did not prohibit it from reducing ticket prices after GST on cinema tickets was cut from 18% to 12% from January 1, 2019.
GSTAT Ernakulam Holds 7-Day Limit Mandatory For Penalty Orders, Quashes Order Passed After 445 Days
Case Title : GMG Electric, Kochi v. Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala
Case Number : APL/33/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (EKM) 48
The Ernakulam Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), on 16 September held that the seven-day time limit under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for passing a penalty order is mandatory. A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram allowed the appeal filed by GMG Electric, Kochi against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), SGST Department, Kerala, and set aside the penalty order passed against the company.
Case Title : M/s Jai Enterprises v. Dr Anupama Goyal, Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Kanpur & Ors.
Case Number : APL/82/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (LCK) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 16 September held that tax and penalty cannot be sustained merely on an inference that goods had been transported earlier or that e-way bills had been reused without evidence establishing either. A Two-Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar allowed Jai Enterprises' appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeals), Kanpur, which had upheld a demand of Rs. 6,62,077 under the Central GST/UP GST Acts.
Commissioner's Approval Alone Cannot Sustain Departmental Appeal Below ₹20 Lakh: GSTAT Ghaziabad
Case Title : Sandeep Tiwari v. Gainwell Commosales Private Limited
Case Number : (Filing No) 2026109301001667
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (GHA) 50
On 1 October, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ghaziabad, held that a departmental appeal cannot be maintained when the disputed tax demand is below the prescribed monetary limit unless the Revenue establishes a recognised exception to the limit. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi and Technical Member Sungita Sharma dismissed the Revenue's appeal involving a disputed amount of Rs. 11.88 lakh at the threshold, without examining its merits.
Case Title : Valuecart Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number : APL/174/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 51
The Bengaluru Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 30 September partly allowed an appeal filed by Valuecart Private Limited against a penalty of Rs. 20,13,640 imposed under Section 129 of the Central and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Acts, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000 under Section 125 of the GST Acts for the procedural lapse. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman held that failure to generate a fresh e-way bill for returning imported goods after a failed delivery does not, by itself, justify a penalty for tax evasion when the authorities find no evidence of such evasion.
GSTAT Delhi Directs Builder To Pay ₹31.20 Lakh To 66 Homebuyers For Failure To Pass On ITC Benefit
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/58/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 53
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi, on 30 September directed Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 31.20 lakh to 66 homebuyers of its Atri Green Valley Project in Kolkata, along with 18% annual interest. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta rejected the company's objections to the re-investigation and held that it had violated Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, by failing to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to homebuyers.
GSTAT Orders IRCTC To Deposit ₹50.41 Crore For Failing To Pass On GST Benefit On Rail Neer
Case Title : DGAP, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC)
Case Number : NAPA/46/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 54
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held that Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) failed to pass on the benefit of a reduction in tax rates on Rail Neer packaged drinking water after GST was introduced in 2017. The tribunal found that although the Railway Board fixed the maximum retail price (MRP), IRCTC had the discretion to determine the transfer price at which it supplied the product to railway licensees and contractors.
CA Certificate Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because It Was Issued After Transactions: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, Commissioner, GST Office Lucknow & Ors.Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, Commissioner, GST Office Lucknow & Ors.
Case Number : APL/1/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 55
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 6 October held that a Chartered Accountant's (CA) certificate supporting an Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim cannot be rejected solely because it was issued after the transactions in question, provided its contents can be verified against contemporaneous records. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra allowed Rameshwar Gupta's appeal against the rejection of his ITC claim for the financial year 2017-18 over discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.
Case Title : Associated Cashews v. Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APL/52/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(THIR) 56
On 16 October, the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) allowed a cashew exporter Associated Cashews to recover approximately Rs. 19.79 lakh in Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid twice, holding that a clerical error in GST returns cannot justify denying a refund of tax paid in excess, A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram observed that the GST Department cannot retain tax collected twice when the taxpayer was not legally required to make the additional payment.
Case Title : Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited
Case Number : APL/24/AGR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(AGR) 57
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has recently ruled that an allegation that a supplier is bogus cannot, by itself, justify denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) without examining the evidence produced by the buyer to establish that the purchases were genuine. The bench comprising Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar upheld ITC of ₹3.83 lakh claimed by Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited. It found that the company had produced documents supporting the purchases and establishing the transportation and receipt of goods.
GSTAT Ernakulam Allows Excess Output Tax Paid To Be Adjusted Against Ineligible ITC
Case Title : Chennamkudiyil Timbers v. Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : APL/20/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(ERNA) 58
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has recently ruled that excess output tax paid by a taxpayer can be adjusted against ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC). It held that when the excess tax paid exceeds the ITC disallowed, there is no short payment of tax warranting proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act. “Expecting the appellant to pay up the shortfall demanded and then file a claim for refund of the excess amount paid would be an exercise in futility. As such we find that when the excess of output tax paid is more than the input credit denied, there is no short payment of tax warranting invocation of proceedings under section 73 of the KGST / CGST Act,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Nitin Bakers Private Limited v. Vijay Singh Visen, Deputy Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/108/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 59
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Bench, has held that confirming a GST demand based purely on system-generated discrepancies, without a detailed one-to-one financial reconciliation, violates the spirit of law and fairness. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar made the observation while setting aside the original demand order and the first appellate order against Nitin Bakers Private Limited, involving ₹56.24 lakh in tax, interest, and penalty. the tribunal remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh determination.
GSTAT Chandigarh Allows Deltron ₹2.90 Lakh GST Credit, Rejects ₹6.99 Lakh Claim
Case Title : Deltron v. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Ludhiana, Commissioner, Ludhiana & Ors.
Case Number : APL/28/CHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(CHD) 60
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Chandigarh, has allowed Deltron to claim ₹2.90 lakh in transitional tax credit on capital goods received after GST came into force. However, it rejected the company's claim for ₹6.99 lakh in credit on goods cleared for export before GST but exported after the new tax regime came into force. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Jatinder Pal Singh and Technical Member Pradeep Kumar Goel partly allowed the appeal filed by Deltron, a division of Continental Device India Private Limited, against an order disallowing its transitional credit claim under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi
Case Number : APL/3/ERN/2026 to APL/9/ERN/2026 and APL/30/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(ERN) 61
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has recently allowed Singapore Airlines' claims for a ₹45.92 lakh GST refund on tickets for flights cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that the airline had refunded passengers the full ticket fare, including GST. “The appellant-airline is eligible for the refund of GST collected from the passengers and paid by them to the GST Department, but subsequently refunded entire amount of fare including GST to the passengers, on account of cancellation of the flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Oxygen The Digital Shop v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST
Case Number : APL/15/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(TVP) 62
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop to claim ₹11.23 lakh in Input Tax Credit (ITC) on carpentry, joinery and painting services used for interior work at its rented shops. It held that the GST component was not capitalised in the retailer's books of accounts. “Since the amount of GST is not capitalised, such amount of tax does not get covered under the restricted category of Section 17(5)(d),” the tribunal ruled.
GST Refund Rejection Without Mandatory Notice Cannot Be Cured At Appellate Stage: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : APL/32/THN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(TNA)64
The Thane Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 22 October held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected without issuing a mandatory show cause notice and granting a hearing, and that an opportunity to present the case at the appellate stage cannot cure this statutory violation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ramesh Nair and Technical Member Prallhad S. Paranjape set aside the appellate orders upholding the partial rejection of refund claims filed by Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.
GST Refund Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Provisional ITC Reversal: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Ajit Kumar Minz v. M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited
Case Number : APL/53/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK)65
On 22 October, the Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that a provisional reversal of input tax credit (ITC) and a pending investigation into an alleged stock shortage cannot, by themselves, establish a tax liability or justify rejection of a GST refund claim. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar dismissed the tax department's appeal against the order allowing B.L. Agro Industries Limited a refund of Rs. 14.35 crore, holding that the department had not established that the reversed amount represented a self-assessed tax liability.
Supplier's Retrospective GST Cancellation Not Enough To Deny ITC Without Verification: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/Kalyan
Case Number : APL/52/THN/2026 & APL/53/THN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(THA) 66
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane, on 22 October held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration, by itself, does not justify denial of input tax credit (ITC) without independent verification of the transactions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ramesh Nair and Technical Member Prallhad S. Paranjape set aside the orders denying ITC to Trivesh Enterprises LLP and dismissing its appeals for non-prosecution, directing the GST authorities to reconsider the matters on merits.
Delayed Stock Entries From Genuine Transactions Cannot Alone Justify Confiscation: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Sanjeev Kumar Niranjan v. M/s Time Steels
Case Number : APL/103/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 67
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, has held that a delay in recording genuine business transactions in the books of accounts does not, by itself, justify confiscation of stock. The tribunal observed, “There is a vast legal distinction between a delayed entry of a genuine transaction and an unaccounted transaction designed for clandestine removal. Delayed bookkeeping backed by regular commercial invoices cannot be branded as a statutory offense under Section 130.”
GSTAT Delhi Directs Candeur Constructions To Pass On ₹1.63 Crore ITC Benefit To 188 Homebuyers
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Candeur Constructions
Case Number : NAPA/106A/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(DEL) 68
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, has directed Candeur Constructions to pass on an ITC benefit of ₹1.63 crore, including GST, to 188 homebuyers of its Bengaluru project, Candeur Carlisle. It also directed the builder to pay 18% interest from the date the higher amount was collected from each homebuyer until the benefit is passed on.
GST Demand Cannot Be Sustained On New Grounds Not Put To Taxpayer In Notice: GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Fortinet Technologies India Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
Case Number : APL/88/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 69
On 27 October, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru, held that an appellate authority cannot uphold a GST demand on grounds that were never communicated to the taxpayer through a show-cause notice. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Prabhakaran P M and Technical Member Ravi Jesuraj S set aside the GST demand against Fortinet Technologies India Private Limited, holding that the department had failed to issue a proper show-cause notice and that the appellate authority had introduced new grounds to sustain the demand.
Refund Of Pre-July 2022 Accumulated ITC Cannot Be Denied Based On CBIC Circular: GSTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Kedia Agro v. Principal Commissioner, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : APL/194/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (HYD) 70
The Hyderabad Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 October held that refund of input tax credit (ITC) accumulated under an inverted duty structure before 18 July 2022 cannot be denied merely because the refund application was filed later. A Bench of Judicial Member Sushil Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas ruled that an executive circular cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims for an earlier period, and allowed Kedia Agro's appeal against the rejection of its Rs. 61.47 lakh refund claim and set aside the orders of the original adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority.
Case Title : Ravish Kumar Singh v. M/s Mani Ply
Case Number : APL/239/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 71
The State Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Lucknow, on 27 October held that a penalty for excess goods found during transportation cannot be imposed on the entire consignment when the remaining goods are covered by valid documents. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar dismissed the Department's appeal against the First Appellate Authority's decision to reduce the penalty imposed on Mani Ply from Rs. 57,870 to Rs. 5,375.40 under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017.
GSTAT Hyderabad Bench Sets Aside ₹68.52 Lakh Demand For Claiming IGST Credit As CGST And SGST
Case Title : Innominds Software Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Case Number : APL/51/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(HYD) 72
The Hyderabad Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has set aside a GST demand of ₹68.52 lakh after holding that claiming IGST credit under CGST and SGST instead of IGST amounts to a reporting error and not wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Bench comprising Judicial Member A.P. Ravi and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas held that the inadvertent error in the tax head under which credit was claimed does not make the credit ineligible under Section 73 of the GST Act.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Outdoor Playground Equipment Attracts 5% GST, Gym Equipment 18%: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: M/S Sundek Sports Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/38
On 29 September, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that outdoor playground equipment and outdoor gym equipment are classifiable under Heading 9506, with their spare parts generally following the classification of the equipment, while bearings are separately classifiable under Heading 8482. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Vora and CGST Member Vishal Malani passed the ruling on an application by Sundek Sports Pvt. Ltd. It also held that outdoor playground equipment and its spare parts attract 5% GST, while outdoor gym equipment, its spare parts and bearings attract 18% GST.
GST Not Payable On Amounts Recovered From Employees For Canteen Meals: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/36
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that GST is not payable on amounts recovered by Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from employees towards canteen meals at its Indrad plant, R&D facility and corporate office. The AAR held that the deductions made from employees do not amount to a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The Authority observed, “We hold that the deduction made by the applicant from the employees who are availing food in the factory/corporate office would not be considered as a 'supply' under the provisions of section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GST Council Recommends Dropping Arrest Powers, Raising Prosecution Threshold To ₹5 Crore
The GST Council has recommended dropping arrest powers under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law by omitting Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 69 currently allows the tax authorities to authorise the arrest of a person suspected of committing specified GST offences. These offences are set out under Section 132 of the Act and include certain cases involving tax evasion and fraudulent input tax credit. It has also proposed raising the monetary threshold for prosecution from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore and narrowing several offences under Section 132.