LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Monthly Digest: September 2026
Kapil Dhyani
2 Oct 2026 2:33 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Sahil Enterprises & Anr.
Case Number : D No. 33460/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 286
Today, the Supreme Court issued notice in the Union of India's challenge to a Tripura High Court judgment which allowed a purchaser to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the supplier having failed to deposit the GST collected from the purchaser with the Government. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran also stayed the operation of the High Court's 6 January 2026 judgment. The case concerns the interpretation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires, among other conditions for availing ITC, that the tax charged on the supply must have actually been paid to the Government.
Supreme Court Says Delay In Tax Deposit Not 'Failure To Pay', Quashes Penalty On Saudi Airlines
Case Title : M/s Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 289
On 1 September, the Supreme Court held that the penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for “failure to pay” Foreign Travel Tax cannot be imposed merely because the tax was deposited after the prescribed deadline. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed an appeal filed by Saudi Arabian Airlines against a Bombay High Court judgment which upheld a penalty imposed on the airline for delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT). The judges held: “Failure to pay would mean non-payment. 'Failure to pay' would not mean and cannot be equated with 'delay in making payment'.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹425.28 Crore Customs Penalty Over Fake Citations, AI Hallucinations
Case Title : VIJAY GHANSHYAM GADIYA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15605/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 290
The Supreme Court has set aside a customs penalty of ₹425.28 crore against a diamond trader after finding that the adjudicating authority had relied on non-existent judgments and fake citations. It also found that legal propositions had been wrongly attributed to existing judgments, which the Court said appeared to be a “hallucination of AI”. A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the Gujarat High Court's January 20, 2026, order that had dismissed Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya's challenge to the penalty.
Case Title : SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 030419 - / 2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal against the Delhi High Court's order holding that a GST adjudicating authority is not bound to seek additional documents or clarifications from a taxpayer before passing an order merely because it finds the material already furnished insufficient. The case arose from a plea by Sodexo India Services Private Limited challenging the GST adjudication order.
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA VS. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 47708/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order quashing GST proceedings involving a ₹363 crore demand against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the Union of India's special leave petition at the threshold. The High Court had held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd after its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd and Vodafone India Ltd were void ab initio, as the company had ceased to exist as a separate legal entity.
Case Title : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 37096 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 299
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger Bench the question of whether stamp duty authorities must have material showing fraudulent intention before questioning the value of a property under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed serious doubts about the three-Judge Bench ruling in V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector of Stamps.
Case Title : PUNEET BATRA Vs UNION OF INDIA
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 34115-34116/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether GST authorities investigating a case could themselves decide which material seized from an advocate was protected by advocate-client privilege while hearing a plea by advocate Puneet Batra challenging the search of his office and seizure of his computer and documents. A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu raised the question during the hearing after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Union government, submitted that confidential material could be protected by redacting or segregating it during the investigation.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : M/s B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Case Number : SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 109 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 69
The Allahabad High Court on 25 August held that turnover cannot be enhanced merely on the ground of alleged suppression when the actual figure of suppression has not been identified, observing that even where the books of account are rejected, the enhancement must correspond to the suppression found during the survey. Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed the revision filed by B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bareilly Division, holding that the enhancement of turnover was not justified in the absence of any specific figure of alleged suppression.
Customs Must Establish Foreign Origin Before Presuming Goods Were Smuggled: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lko. v. Anand Navalchand Pugaliya
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 71
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not shift to the person from whom goods are seized unless the customs authorities first establish that the goods are of foreign origin and were smuggled into India. it held that where nothing on the record connects the goods to smuggling, the presumption cannot be pressed into service at all.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lko. v. Anand Navalchand Pugaliya
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 1 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 71
The Allahabad High Court on 3 September held that an owner of seized goods does not discharge the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely by producing documents relating to his business generally, and must instead produce documents that specifically and traceably establish lawful acquisition of the seized goods. A Division Bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the burden shifted to the owner after the revenue satisfied the conditions for invoking Section 123, and restored the confiscation of three gold bars weighing 2,997 grams.
Case Title : Neelkanth Entrepreneurs Private Limited Thru. Its Director v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax U.P. Lko. And Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1024 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 72
The Allahabad High Court has held that scrutiny of returns under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is not a mandatory step before the department issues a show cause notice under Section 74A of the Act. It held that where the notice rests on independent verification and not merely on discrepancies in the assessee's own returns, the department need not first call for the assessee's explanation under Section 61.
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow v. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta
Case Number : CUSTOM APPEAL No. - 14 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 74
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that Customs authorities cannot deny provisional release of seized goods merely because an executive instruction places such goods outside the scope of provisional release. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 cannot dilute the scope of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, by prohibiting provisional release of goods notified under Section 123 of the Act.
GST Authority Cannot Pass Fresh Ex-Parte Order After Ignoring Replies: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 3203 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 78
The Allahabad High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 must recall an order if it finds that it failed to consider the replies filed against the proceedings and hear the person afresh. It cannot consider those replies itself and pass a fresh ex-parte order on merits while exercising the rectification power under Section 161 of the Act. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi set aside an order passed against Wonder Enterprises after the Adjudicating Authority acknowledged that it had failed to consider the firm's replies in the original order but instead considered them itself in a subsequent order.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Smt G Swarajya Lakshmi v. Commercial Tax Officer & Others
Case Number : W.P.Nos.253 of 2021 & 17913 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 52
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 September held that hiring buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) does not amount to a transfer of the right to use goods where substantial control and physical possession remain with the bus owners. A Division Bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar quashed the assessment orders against private bus operators, holding that the transactions were not taxable as deemed sales under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad v. M/s Millennium Beer Industries Ltd. (now amalgamated with United Breweries Ltd.)
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 1 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 493
The Bombay High Court on 3 September dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the setting aside of a Rs. 21.92 crore demand against Millennium Beer Industries Ltd., holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to raise a service tax demand without establishing fraud, collusion or suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax, and A Division Bench of Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Abasaheb D. Shinde also held that the Revenue cannot take different stands in substantially identical cases after accepting a decision in favour of another taxpayer.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹21.93 Crore Stamp Duty Demand Against Wadhwa Constructions
Case Title : Wadhwa Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11115 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 494
The Bombay High Court on 7 September set aside a stamp duty demand of about Rs. 21.93 crore against Wadhwa Constructions & Infrastructure Private Limited in connection with a Joint Development Agreement, holding that the valuation had wrongly taken into account development rights and benefits that did not exist on the date of the agreement. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Borkar set aside the valuation adopted by the Collector of Stamps and the appellate authority. He observed that “the expression 'market value' has to be applied to the property and rights which form the subject matter of the instrument on the relevant date.”
Stamp Duty Authority Need Not Wait For Flat Sales To Assess Development Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : VTP Homee Landmark (LLP) v. State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Revenue & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10120 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 501
The Bombay High Court has held that an agreed share of future sale proceeds under a development agreement can be taken into account while determining the market value of an instrument for stamp duty. The stamp authority does not have to wait for the project to be completed or for the flats to be sold before assessing the consideration agreed between the parties. Justice Amit Borkar relied on the court's earlier decision in Kolte Patil to reject the argument that future sale proceeds could not be treated as present consideration because the eventual sale price of the flats was unknown.
GST Introduced After Tender Cannot Be Treated As Included In Quoted Rates: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Indu Construction v. Nagpur Improvement Trust & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1867 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 505
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has ruled that a contractor cannot be denied GST reimbursement by relying on tender clauses requiring quoted rates to include “applicable taxes” when GST was not in existence when the tender was issued. A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode, relying on the tender clasues observed, "The taxes which are not recoverable by the Government from the contractors, on the date of tender, cannot be the basis for quoting the rates while submitting the bid."
Case Title : M/s SVS Aqua Technologies LLP v. Superintendent, Range IV, Division I (Shivajinagar), CGST Pune II Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11359 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 506
The Bombay High Court has held that a taxpayer's apprehension that GST authorities would effect recovery on the basis of audit findings communicated to it was misconceived. “The apprehension of the petitioner that the recovery will be effected on the basis of such information is misconceived,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil observed. The court added that the GST Department would have to take further action in accordance with the CGST Act.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (General), Air Cargo Complex v. J M Baxi & Co. & Ors.
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 36 & 39 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 508
The Bombay High Court has held that even a peripheral question touching the rate of customs duty can fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction. Such an appeal would lie directly before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeals against a CESTAT Mumbai order in favour of J M Baxi & Co. and others. The dispute concerned duty exemption on “stores” imported for salvage operations involving MSC Chitra.
Bombay High Court Allows Microsoft's Plea Against ₹1.40 Crore VAT, CST Interest Demand
Case Title : Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1885 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 510
The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over interest on VAT and CST payments. The court held that the company could not be treated as having delayed payment when it had paid tax within the time allowed for its six-monthly returns. “The present is a case where the tax has been paid in terms of the timeline prescribed by the Act and the rules as indicated earlier,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil ruled.
Case Title : Transcon Sheth Creators Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10725 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 517
The Bombay High Court has held that future redevelopment potential of a property cannot be treated as a present and certain benefit while determining its market value for stamp duty. The uncertainty, expenses, delay, and legal difficulties involved in realising that potential must also be considered. Justice Amit Borkar observed, “A purchaser may be willing to pay something for future potential. But such potential cannot be treated as a present and certain benefit without considering the uncertainty, expenses, delay, legal difficulties and other conditions which may come in the way of obtaining that benefit.”
Case Title : Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. with connected matter
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 2029 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 526
The Bombay High Court has quashed a ₹12.11 crore GST demand against Dharma Productions over licensing of copyright in cinematographic films, holding that electronic delivery of film content cannot by itself make the transaction one involving “Information Technology Software”. A bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil was considering whether the manner in which the films were delivered, physically through encrypted hard disks or electronically, could determine their GST classification.
Tax Authorities Cannot Recover Pre-CIRP Dues Extinguished Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Aarem Insights Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd.) v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-VII & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 36803 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM)527
The Bombay High Court on 7 September held that tax authorities cannot continue recovery proceedings for pre-CIRP dues extinguished under an NCLT-approved Resolution Plan. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed a writ petition filed by Aarem Insights Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd., and directed the State tax authorities to refund the statutory pre-deposit of Rs. 31,99,174 made by the company for pursuing its MVAT appeal, along with applicable interest.
Crane Hiring Not Sale, No MVAT If Ownership And Control Remain With Owner: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Sharma Heavy Lifter v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number : Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 529
The Bombay High Court has ruled that hiring out cranes does not amount to a sale for levy of Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) when ownership and effective control of the cranes remain with the owner. A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed an appeal filed by Sharma Heavy Lifter. It quashed the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's order holding the crane-hiring transactions liable to VAT and imposing interest and penalty.
'Agreement For Assignment' Label Cannot Bar Stamp Duty Refund For Failed Deal: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Solanki Tea Company Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 948 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 536
On Tuesday, 29 September, the Bombay High Court held that refund of stamp duty cannot be denied merely because a failed property transaction was documented as an “Agreement for Assignment” rather than an “Agreement to Sale”. Justice Amit Borkar directed the Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs. 29.75 lakh paid by Solanki Tea Company Private Limited, holding that the relief available under the Maharashtra Stamp Act depends on whether the transaction intended through the instrument had failed, and not merely on the nomenclature of the document.
Case Title : Kalpataru Gardens Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 540
The Bombay High Court has held that a delay caused by the Stamp Authority in adjudicating stamp duty cannot be used to deny registration of a document when the party seeking registration was not responsible for the delay. “A substantive legal right accrued to the Petitioners to have the document registered under the provisions of the Registration Act cannot stand defeated, merely on account of some delay, which is definitely not attributable to the party presenting the document for registration, that too for reasons beyond its control,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna observed.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Directs Post-Decisional Hearing On ₹4.43 Crore ITC Blocking
Case Title : SPL Steel Processors Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Revenue, Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Office of Charge Officer, Salt Lake Charge & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.A. 17279 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 207
The Calcutta High Court on 1 September directed GST authorities to grant a post-decisional personal hearing to a company whose Electronic Credit Ledger was blocked to the extent of Rs. 4.43 crore, holding that it must be given an opportunity to substantiate the genuineness of its purchases and suppliers. Justice Smita Das De disposed of a writ petition filed by SPL Steel Processors Private Limited challenging the blocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger for the period from 1 February 2026 to 17 June 2026.
GST Notice To Deceased Invalid, Legal Heirs Must Be Separately Notified: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Gita Rani Pan v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.A. 10402 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 208
The Calcutta High Court on 27 August held that GST authorities cannot issue a show cause notice or determine tax liability against a deceased person, and must instead issue the notice to the deceased's legal representatives in their own names. Justice Smita Das De made the observation while quashing a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) against Late Haradhan Pan, who died on 20 May 2021, along with the consequential Order-in-Original and recovery notice.
Case Title : Shri Gopal Saha v. Union of India & Anr. with connected appeals including Shri Ajgar Seikh v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : APO 139 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 213
On Thursday, 10 September, the Calcutta High Court held that gold imported into India in violation of applicable import restrictions can be treated as “prohibited goods” under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, even though gold is not absolutely prohibited from being imported into the country. A Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt allowed the Customs Department's appeals and dismissed the appeals filed by Gopal Saha and Ajgar Seikh, setting aside the Single Judge's judgment and restoring the adjudication order imposing penalties on them.
Calcutta High Court To Examine If Customs Can Treat 'Obscene Adult Sex Toys' As Prohibited Goods
Case Title : Pracha Aalloy Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WPO/370/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 221
The Calcutta High Court is set to examine whether goods described as “obscene adult sex toys” can be treated as “prohibited goods” under the Customs Act without identifying a specific statutory or notification-based prohibition. Justice Smita Das De is hearing a petition filed by Pracha Aalloy Private Limited against a July 22, 2026, Customs order. The key question is whether describing the goods as “obscene adult sex toys” and invoking Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can, by themselves, make them prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act.
Post-Facto Approval Cannot Bring Pre-GST Services Within GST Regime: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : M/s Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 5150 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 227
The Calcutta High Court on 14 September held that post-facto approval of work completed before the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot alter the date of supply or bring the completed service within the GST regime. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee allowed a writ petition filed by Goutam Engineering Concern against West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and directed the latter to release Rs. 19,91,148 towards payment for technical personnel deployed for repair and maintenance of feeder lines.
Bona Fide Buyer Of Duty-Free Import Licence Not Liable For Exporter's Fraud: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : CUSTA 7 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 228
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a bona fide purchaser of a duty-free import licence cannot be made liable for the exporter's fraud when the purchaser had no knowledge of it. It observed that a licence obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is not automatically void or non-existent. Where the licence was genuinely issued by the competent authority and remained uncancelled, it continues to be valid until it is avoided in accordance with law.
Case Title : Sharma Export v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 4721 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 233
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to take measures to ensure that genuine exporters are not driven to “needless litigation” over inadvertent procedural lapses that can be rectified in accordance with law. “The DGFT authorities must take appropriate measures, whether by issuing comprehensive instructions or by suitable technological adjustments, to ensure that genuine exporters are not driven to needless litigation on account of inadvertent procedural lapses which can be rectified in accordance with law,” Justice Smita Das De observed.
Failure To Furnish Bank Details For GST Registration Is Curable Lapse: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. The Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WPA 10299 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 237
The Calcutta High Court has observed that failure to furnish bank details, though a violation of Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, can be cured by producing the correct bank details and supporting documents to establish the taxpayer's bona fides. Justice Smita Das De made the observation while considering a plea against cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of bank details.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Pleas Against GST Order Covering 629 Firms In Fake Invoice Case
Case Title : M/S Vleadit & Anr v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12148/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 903
The Delhi High Court on 21 August declined to entertain petitions challenging an adjudication order passed against 629 firms and individuals in connection with an alleged large-scale fake invoice racket, holding that disputed factual issues concerning their individual roles should be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain relegated the petitioners to the statutory remedy of appeal, holding that whether their replies to the Show Cause Notice were duly considered and what role they played in the transactions required examination by the Appellate Authority.
Customs Broker Has Right To Cross-Examine Witnesses In Licence Revocation Inquiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/S Vogue Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case Number : CUSAA 63/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 907
On 1 September, the Delhi High Court held that a Customs Broker is entitled to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon in proceedings for revocation of its licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain upheld the remand of the revocation proceedings for fresh adjudication after granting Vogue Logistics Pvt. Ltd. an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Delhi High Court Finds No Natural Justice Violation In Customs Case After Four Missed Hearings
Case Title : Shakti Mehta & Ors. v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11539/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 909
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging a Customs order on the ground that Petitioners were denied a personal hearing, holding that they had been given repeated and adequate opportunities, which they failed to avail. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that adjournments were granted as an indulgence rather than as a right, and that Petitioners were afforded four opportunities of personal hearing between September and December 2024.
Case Title : Irfan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16386/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 911
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a 116-gram gold bar seized by Customs in December 2020, noting that the petitioner remained “inactive for several years” and approached the Court only in 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that Petitioner was aware of the seizure but did not take any steps in respect of it for several years.
Mere Natural Justice Violation Claim Cannot Bypass Customs Appeal Remedy: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Mohammad Nawab Khan Thro His Wife Fareeeda Begum v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18202/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 912
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a mere assertion of violation of principles of natural justice cannot, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while declining to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of a 117-gram gold bar by Customs authorities.
Case Title : Mohd Khalid v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 913
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of a separate written show cause notice does not, by itself, justify the release of goods detained by Customs. This is particularly so where the Department asserts that oral proceedings were undertaken at the time of interception and remains willing to afford the passenger a personal hearing The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars weighing 166 grams, which were detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport in December 2024.
Case Title : M.M. Ceramics & Ferro Alloys v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10535/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 914
The Delhi High Court has held that the dispute resolution mechanism under the India-ASEAN trade agreement cannot bar Customs authorities from initiating proceedings under the Customs Act 1962, observing that the relevant treaty provision has not been incorporated into Indian domestic law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by M.M. Ceramics & Ferro Alloys challenging Customs proceedings relating to its claim of preferential customs duty on Malaysian tin ingots.
Case Title : Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs The Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs Air Cargo Complex Import & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10387/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 915
The Delhi High Court has held that a pre-insolvency customs claim against Jaiprakash Associates Limited stood extinguished after the Customs Department failed to submit it during the company's insolvency process and the resolution plan was approved. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed, “The failure of the Respondents (Customs) to submit their claim cannot…operate to the prejudice of the Corporate Debtor or the Successful Resolution Applicant. The IBC does not contemplate that a creditor who fails to participate in the CIRP acquires a superior position after its conclusion.”
No Automatic Release Of Seized Goods Where Customs Claims Oral Show Cause Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Saiyyada Khatoon vs Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 102/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 918
The Delhi High Court has held that unconditional release of seized goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be ordered merely because no written show cause notice was issued when the Customs Department specifically asserts that an oral show cause notice under Section 124(a) was issued. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition seeking release of a 100-gram gold bar seized from the petitioner at Delhi airport.
Case Title : Mohammad Junaid v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 919
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of a 117-gram gold bar, holding that the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing a revision application before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed the petition of an Indian national who was intercepted at the Delhi airport after he crossed the Green Channel.
Case Title : Mohd Arif v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 920
The Delhi High Court has observed that a passenger's waiver of a written show cause notice under the Customs Act cannot be considered in isolation to defeat confiscation, where the record also contains the passenger's own acknowledgment that an oral show cause notice had been received. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order directing absolute confiscation of two gold bars weighing 233 grams and valued at ₹13,07,412.
Case Title : Ministry Of Railways v. The Assessing Authority & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13676/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 921
The Delhi High Court has set aside assessment orders and revisional orders involving aggregate sales tax demands of ₹533,79,21,617. The demands concerned rolling stock financed through the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC). The court held that the authorities had wrongly treated the entire rolling stock financed through IRFC as having first belonged to the Railways. They had then treated it as having been sold by the Railways to IRFC.
Delhi High Court Refuses Release Of Customs-Detained Gold Over Disputed Coercion Claim
Case Title : Mohammad Umar v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 42/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 924
The Delhi High Court has held that a disputed claim that a passenger was coerced into signing documents admitting non-declaration of goods cannot, by itself, justify their release in writ jurisdiction. The court cannot accept such a version over contemporaneous documents bearing the passenger's signatures when it raises disputed questions of fact. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars, which had been detained from Petitioner at Delhi airport after crossing the Green Channel.
ITC Blocked By GST Authorities Cannot Be Treated As Appeal Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Spherion Solutions Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3418/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 925
The Delhi High Court on 3 September held that input tax credit (ITC) blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules cannot be treated as payment of the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing a GST appeal. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition filed by Spherion Solutions Private Limited seeking permission to utilise Rs. 3,33,257 from its blocked Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.
Customs Seizure Cannot Be Set Aside Merely For Want Of Written Show-Cause Notice Delhi High Court
Case Title : Najir v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16994/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 926
The Delhi High Court on 2 September held that the absence of a separate written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself warrant unconditional release of goods seized by Customs, particularly where the Department claims that an oral show-cause notice was issued within the statutory period. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain disposed of a petition by Najir seeking unconditional release of three gold bars bearing the marking “1 Ounce Fine Gold 999.9”, which Customs had seized from the petitioner at Delhi airport upon his return from Saudi Arabia.
Case Title : Nahid Zakiya Through Spa Mohammad Uzair v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1037/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 927
The Delhi High Court on 3 September held that reliance on Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects a person's property rights, cannot by itself entitle a person to unconditional release of property when statutory proceedings under the Customs law are underway. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Nahid Zakiya through SPA Mohammad Uzair seeking the return of a 58-gram gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport.
Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Against Gold Confiscation, Cites Disputed Facts And Revision Remedy
Case Title : Fahim Ahmad v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17561/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 930
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation by Customs authorities, holding that disputes concerning the alleged oral show-cause notice and waiver of personal hearing involve disputed questions of fact which should be examined by the statutory revisional authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that although the existence of an alternative remedy does not completely bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, the present case involved factual disputes concerning what transpired between the petitioner and Customs officials.
Case Title : Iqrar Ali v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 111/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 929
The Delhi High Court on 2 September held that expiry of the initial six-month period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself entitle a person to release of seized goods where the period has been validly extended and a Show Cause Notice is issued within the extended period. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition seeking release of nine gold bars and one gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport from the petitioner.
Case Title : Neha v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12210/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 931
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Central government has failed to curb the practice of obtaining fraudulent GST registrations by misusing the PAN and Aadhaar details of innocent citizens, despite nearly nine years having elapsed since the enforcement of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while considering petitions alleging fraudulent GST registrations obtained using the PAN and Aadhaar numbers of persons who had no connection with the businesses concerned.
Case Title : Mohammad Sadiq v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2255/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 941
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Customs Department cannot retain seized goods indefinitely merely because adjudication proceedings have not been completed. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with two petitions seeking release of gold and gold jewellery detained by Customs at the Delhi airport. Petitioners contended that the goods had remained with Customs for several years without any order being passed and that no Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, had been issued within the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(2).
Case Title : Rohit Garg v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8829/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 942
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a batch of writ petitions challenging GST proceedings and penalty orders. The court held that the petitioners can raise their objections, including the alleged lack of competence of the officers who issued the show-cause notices, before the statutory appellate authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the objection regarding the competence of the officers did not constitute a “patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction” warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Customs Adjudication Limitation Clock Restarts After Interim Stay Ends: Delhi High Court
Case Title : GKEM International Pvt Ltd & Ors. Commissioner Of Customs ICD Ppg And Others ICDS
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5796/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 943
The Delhi High Court has held that where a pending court proceeding and an interim order prevent customs authorities from proceeding with adjudication, the limitation period prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, is to be reckoned from the date on which the circumstance contemplated under Section 28(9A) ceases to exist. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging a customs adjudication order that confirmed a demand of approximately ₹20.18 crore in differential customs duty.
Delhi High Court Declines Unconditional Release Of Gold, Cites Dispute Over Oral Show-Cause Notice
Case Title : Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 152/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 945
The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the unconditional release of 290 grams of gold seized from a passenger at Delhi airport, holding that the absence of a written show-cause notice by itself could not warrant release when the Customs Department specifically claimed that an oral show-cause notice had been issued on the date of seizure. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition filed by Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum seeking release of eight gold bars detained by Customs authorities for Green Channel violation.
Case Title : Hospitech Management Consultants Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : SERTA 15/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 947
The Delhi High Court has set aside a ₹4.5 lakh penalty imposed on a consultancy firm for non-payment of service tax, holding that the default arose from a bona fide and reasonable belief regarding the taxability of its services and was not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and observed, “the non-payment of service tax by the Appellant for the relevant period cannot be viewed as a deliberate or contumacious default, as the assessee had acted under a bona fide and reasonable belief that the services rendered by it were not exigible to service tax.”
Delhi High Court Makes Biometric Aadhaar Authentication Mandatory For GST Registrations Nationwide
Case Title : Neha v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12210/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 948
The Delhi High Court has directed authorities across the country not to allow any GST registration without biometric-based Aadhaar authentication, taking note of the continuing misuse of PAN and Aadhaar details of innocent persons for obtaining fraudulent GST registrations. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain passed the direction on September 8 after taking note of data placed before it showing thousands of fraudulent GST registrations and tax evasion running into thousands of crores.
Case Title : Adhvik Polychem v. Assistant Commissioner GST Ward 58
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13175/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 955
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a firm's writ petition challenging the rejection of its application for cancellation of GST registration. The authorities had alleged that the firm sought registration on the basis of documents whose authenticity could not be verified and had availed or passed Input Tax Credit (ITC) from non-existent firms. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the dispute involved examination of the material and various allegations against the firm, making the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, the appropriate remedy.
Case Title : Welspring Universal v. Additional Commissioner Of Central GST
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11957/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 960
The Delhi High Court has quashed a ₹76.72 lakh CENVAT refund recovery demand against an engineering products manufacturer, holding that the adjudicating authority could not rely on an order after it had been set aside by the CESTAT. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the Additional Commissioner, while confirming the demand, failed to take into account the CESTAT's subsequent order expressly upholding the petitioner's entitlement to refund of ₹76.72 lakh under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Customs Failed To Quantify Duty, Can't Blame Traveller For Delay In Redeeming Gold: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Prikshith Jhaver v. Commissioner Of Customs Terminal 3 & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3527/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 961
The Delhi High Court has held that a passenger cannot be faulted for failing to redeem confiscated gold within the stipulated period when the Customs Department itself failed to quantify and communicate the applicable duty, despite receiving his request within time. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Vimal Kumar Yadav accordingly directed the Customs authorities to communicate the duty payable on 12 gold bars weighing 1,200 grams and release the gold upon payment of the duty, redemption fine, penalty and applicable interest.
Delhi High Court Upholds Corrigendum Correcting GST Portal Order That Showed Proceedings Dropped
Case Title : Kapil Raj Anand v. GST Officer, Ward 109, Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7339/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 963
The Delhi High Court has upheld a corrigendum issued by a GST officer to correct an inadvertent error on the GST portal, where the portal-generated order showed that proceedings against a taxpayer had been dropped even though the accompanying adjudication order had confirmed a tax, interest and penalty demand. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the corrigendum merely corrected an inconsistent recital in the original order and did not create a fresh demand.
Case Title : Ridhi Sidhi Overseas v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3391/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 977
The Delhi High Court has held that although the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, bars the Revenue from initiating a fresh demand after the prescribed period, it does not prevent the authorities from appropriating an amount already voluntarily deposited by an importer during investigation towards the admitted customs duty liability. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a case arising from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into alleged under-invoicing and misdeclaration of the transaction value and retail sale price of confectionery items imported by Petitioner from Dubai.
Case Title : Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11021/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 978
The Delhi High Court has upheld the search conducted by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department at an Advocate's office, including seizure of a CPU from his cabin, holding that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where there is prima facie material indicating his possible involvement in the affairs under investigation.
Case Title : Ajay Singh Gautam v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10607/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 979
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of a GST circular prescribing the 'highest amount of demand' criterion for selecting a Common Adjudicating Authority where a composite show-cause notice is issued to multiple noticees falling under different jurisdictions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the circular does not confer any fresh jurisdiction on an officer.
Case Title : RPP Infra Projects Ltd v. Karnataka Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10852/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 980
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a taxpayer is administratively assigned to the State tax administration, it does not bar the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) from exercising its pan-India jurisdiction to investigate alleged GST evasion. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by a real estate company which has GST registrations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
Case Title : Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup v. Commissioner Of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3002/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 981
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism under the Customs Act merely by citing financial hardship in complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging ₹3 crore penalty imposed on a man in connection with an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood concealed beneath carpets.
GST | Disputed SCN Service, Personal Hearing Issues Cannot Be Raised In Writ Plea: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Rishiraj Singh Rathore v. Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7098/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 984
The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction over pleas by two directors of Sterne India Pvt. Ltd. challenging a ₹27.11 crore GST penalty. The court held that their claims over service of the show cause notice (SCN) and denial of personal hearing involved factual issues that could be examined by the statutory appellate authority. According to the court, these grievances did not justify bypassing the remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Case Title : Saraswati Printers v. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Dzu And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 833/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 985
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer challenging proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by State GST authorities can raise the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), before the statutory appellate authority.
GST | Same Assessee, Overlapping Periods Not Enough To Bar DGGI Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sanskriti Exim Private Limited Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Dzu And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 929/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 986
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings initiated by State GST authorities and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because they relate to the same assessee, overlapping financial periods, or involve Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) is attracted only when the subsequent proceedings concern the “same subject matter," which has to be determined with reference to the particular tax liability, alleged contravention, and demand involved.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of GST Cancellation Revocation Plea Over Unidentified Officer
Case Title : Radhe Sales Corporation v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9456/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 991
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting a taxpayer's application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration, after finding that the notice granting an opportunity of personal hearing did not disclose the details of the officer before whom the taxpayer was required to appear. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan directed the GST authorities to grant the taxpayer a fresh opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order on its revocation application.
Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To GST Rule Making Supplier Tax Payment A Condition For ITC
Case Title : Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13622/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1004
The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which makes payment of tax by the supplier a condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain held that the provision has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and that a recipient seeking ITC must establish, through cogent material, that the tax charged on the supply was actually deposited by the supplier.
Pre-Deposit For GST Appeal To Be Governed By Law Existing On SCN Date: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Krishan Pal Singh v. The Additional Commissioner Delhi West Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13927/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1009
The Delhi High Court has held that the requirement of pre-deposit for filing an appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act would be governed by the statutory provision in force on the date of issuance of the show cause notice (SCN). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition challenging a GST adjudication order concerning allegations that Petitioner had created and controlled 13 firms through which input tax credit (ITC) of over ₹30.50 crore was allegedly passed on.
Case Title : Vertilink Media Solutions Private Limited v. Anti Evasion Branch & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13077/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1018
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the ₹10.57 crore GST demand, holding that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Delhi GST authorities were not barred merely because the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had earlier initiated proceedings against the Petitioner concerning overlapping transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which seeks to prevent parallel proceedings by Central and State tax authorities, applies only where the proceedings concern the same subject matter.
CGST Act Permits Tax Liability To Be Determined After Death Of Person: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Jaiwanti v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7254/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1019
The Delhi High Court has held that the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act permits tax, interest, or penalty liability to be determined even after the death of the person against whom the underlying liability arises. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Vimal Kumar Yadav held that Section 93 of the CGST Act does not require adjudicatory proceedings to have commenced during the lifetime of the deceased for liability to be determined after his death.
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹2.31 Crore Anti-Profiteering Liability Against LICHFL Care Homes
Case Title : LICHFL Care Homes Limited v. Director General Of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13665/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1030
The Delhi High Court has upheld a ₹2.31 crore anti-profiteering liability imposed on LICHFL Care Homes Limited in relation to its residential project 'Jeewan Anand' in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain rejected the developer's contention that CENVAT credit which was legally available under the pre-GST regime but not actually availed should be taken into account while determining the benefit arising from the introduction of GST.
Case Title : Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, Cgst Delhi West And Anr (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13883/2026 (and batch)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1034
The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “any person” under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is not confined to a “taxable person” and can include persons who are not registered or liable to be registered under the GST regime. At the same time, the Court ruled that Section 122(1A), which provides for personal penalties in specified fraudulent GST transactions, operates prospectively and can be invoked only in respect of acts or transactions committed on or after January 1, 2021, when the provision came into force.
GST Audit Proceedings Distinct From Section 74 Adjudication; Delhi High Court Declines To Quash SCN
Case Title : Dhruv Medicos Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Gst Circle 5, Audit-I, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10213/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1035
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings arising from a GST audit are distinct from the subsequent adjudicatory proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a pharmaceutical distributor under Section 74, observing that the taxpayer could raise all its objections before the competent adjudicating authority.
Case Title : Vishal Oil And Lubricants Co. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7004/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1036
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs authorities cannot calculate interest for a period during which the liability sought to be subjected to interest had itself not been determined. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while partly allowing a petition filed by Vishal Oil and Lubricants Co., challenging the interest reflected in the Customs EDI System in respect of a Bill of Entry filed in 2015.
Separate GST Proceedings Not Barred If Subject Matter Is Different: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Star Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Atimukt Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another And Another
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10175/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that separate GST proceedings against a taxpayer are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the allegations, material relied upon and nature of the alleged defaults in the two proceedings are different. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by Star Traders challenging proceedings initiated by the GST authorities for alleged wrongful availment and passing on of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Delhi High Court Remits VAT Assessment, Directs Fresh Consideration Of Tax Paid On Subsequent Sales
Case Title : Sunglass Palace Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Trade And Taxes Delhi
Case Number : VAT APPEAL 45/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1043
The Delhi High Court has set aside a VAT assessment concerning alleged stock shortage at a jewellery store, directing the VAT Officer to undertake a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the effect of subsequent sales of the goods found short during a survey. The division bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) v. Sh Bharat Shantilal Shah
Case Number : CUSAA 47/2026
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act can apply to a person alleged to be the “mastermind” or financier who is not in physical possession of the seized goods. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain has framed the question while hearing appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) against CESTAT orders.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : M/s HD Associates v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/3066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 30
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that while the GST department can issue a consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years, it must determine the tax liability separately for each year and apply the provision applicable to that period. “The authorities are therefore required to determine the liability separately for each financial year, apply the provision applicable to that year, and examine the question of limitation and the ingredients necessary for invoking the respective provisions,” the court observed.
Gauhati High Court Directs Refund Of Cess Paid Under Mistake Of Law By Oil India And ONGC
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh v. M/s Oil India Limited
Case Number : C.Ex.App./1/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU)32
The Gauhati High Court on 27 August held that the Central Excise Department cannot retain Education Cess (EC) and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) paid under a mistake of law merely because the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. A Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Anjan Moni Kalita dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh, in matters concerning Oil India Limited and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC).
Case Title : M/s Deepak Construction Co. v. The Union of Indian and 7 Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/5128/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 33
The Gauhati High Court has directed GST authorities not to take coercive steps against a taxpayer for discharge of any liability during an ongoing search and directed them to adhere to the prescribed GST investigation guidelines till the returnable date. Justice Manish Choudhury passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Deepak Construction Co., a partnership firm having its principal place of business at Hijuguri, Tinsukia, Assam.
Gujarat HC
Customs Cannot Indefinitely Detain Goods Through Panchnama To Reset Limitation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Pranavbhai Ambalal Patel v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6295 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 121
The Gujarat High Court on 25 August held that Customs authorities cannot use a Panchnama to indefinitely restrain goods and later issue a formal seizure order to bypass the time limits under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling that the limitation period starts from the date of detention if the mandatory order under the provision was not passed. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that the vehicle belonging to petitioner Pranavbhai Ambalal Patel had effectively remained under restraint for more than a year, even though the Department had not passed the requisite seizure order.
Case Title : Ushaben Kalpeshbhai Patni, Legal Heir (Wife) of Deceased Kalpeshbhai Ramubhai Patni v. State Tax Officer, Ghatak 5 (Ahmedabad)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8255 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 122
The Gujarat High Court has held that GST proceedings initiated against a deceased taxpayer cannot be sustained when the legal heir was neither made a noticee nor given a meaningful opportunity to respond, quashing proceedings initiated against a proprietor who had died several years earlier. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a petition filed by Ushaben Kalpeshbhai Patni, the wife of the deceased proprietor, Kalpeshbhai Ramubhai Patni, and quashed the consequential demand order passed against him.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhavnagar v. Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 510 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 119
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Revenue appeal against the Deputy Conservator of Forests in a ₹3.44-crore service tax dispute over permit fees, entry fees, camera fees, and other charges collected from visitors to Gir Forest. The court relied on an earlier ruling that had held that such fees cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services, as the Deputy Conservator of Forests was discharging sovereign functions while collecting them in his official capacity.
Case Title : Kanan International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 1116, 1117, 1119, 1128, 1129, 1147, 1148 and 1169 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 126
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a GST appeal cannot be rejected as time-barred by calculating limitation solely from the original adjudication order when the assessee had filed a rectification application within the prescribed period and the application was subsequently decided by the adjudicating authority. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed, “It would not be permissible to reject the appeal on the ground of limitation by computing the period from the original adjudication order when a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act has been filed within the prescribed period and has been duly considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority by a reasoned order, and the appeal against such order had thereafter been filed within the prescribed period calculated from the date of the rectification order.”
SEZ Units Cannot Be Denied Stamp Duty Exemption Due To Pre-Ordinance Lease: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : R/LPA No. 554 of 2014 in R/SCA No. 5775 of 2004
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 127
The Gujarat High Court on 2 September held that an SEZ unit cannot be denied exemption from stamp duty and registration fee merely because its lease deed was executed before the Gujarat Special Economic Zone Ordinance, 2004 came into force, where the investment was made on the basis of the State Government's earlier SEZ policy promising such fiscal incentives. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the State Government's appeal against an order directing refund of stamp duty and registration fee paid by Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Environmental Entity, Holds Effluent Treatment Exempt
Case Title : Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 17756 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 128
The Gujarat High Court has held that an environmental protection entity qualified for a nil GST rate on activities falling within charitable activities involving preservation of the environment. The court also found no deliberate intention to evade tax and quashed the show-cause notice issued by the GST authorities. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the petition filed by Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. and its co-petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Admits Ford India Plea Against GST Demands Based On E-Way Bill Discrepancies
Case Title : M/s Ford India Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 1344 and 1351 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 129
The Gujarat High Court on 3 September admitted connected writ petitions filed by Ford India Private Limited challenging show-cause notices and Orders-in-Original issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning alleged discrepancies between taxable values and e-way bill data. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati found that the adjudicating authority had expressed its inability to reconcile the voluminous data despite the material Ford India had furnished.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Demand, Holds ITC Cannot Be Denied On Non-Taxable Transaction
Case Title : Kor Chems Through Partner Sanjay Rameshchandra Soni v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6623 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 131
The Gujarat High Court has held that tax authorities cannot deny input tax credit on a transaction that was not taxable in the first place. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati made the ruling while quashing a GST demand against Kor Chems over credit claimed on the acquisition of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot. The court held that the ITC reversal and interest could not survive after finding that GST was not leviable on the transfer of the leasehold rights.
Chewing Gum Not Taxable At 4% As 'Sweets And Sweetmeats': Gujarat High Court Holds 12.5% VAT Applies
Case Title : State of Gujarat v. Cad Mak Chew Foods
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 690 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 137
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that chewing gum cannot be classified as “sweets and sweetmeats” under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It held that the product is taxable at 12.5%, instead of the 4% rate applicable to sweets and sweetmeats. A bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Associated Distributors Ltd.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : M/s Aditya Industries v. State of H.P. and Others
Case Number : CWP No. 3962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 33
On 29 September, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a show-cause notice alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) issued to Aditya Industries under Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act on the ground that registrations of certain suppliers had been cancelled as they were found to be non-existent, among other reasons. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Yogesh Jaswal emphasised that a GST show-cause notice must set out the facts establishing how the taxpayer committed any of these acts with an intention to evade tax. It cannot invoke Section 74 merely by using the words “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression of facts”.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Quashes GST Penalty Proceedings Over One-Day Delay In Notice
Case Title : Danish Hassan v. UT of J&K and Others
Case Number : WP(C) 2538/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 29
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the seven-day timeline under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for issuing a notice after detention and seizure of goods is mandatory. The court set aside the orders in the case after finding that the notice was issued a day beyond the prescribed period. “There was a delay of one day in issuing the notice, which vitiates the entire proceedings,” a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed.
J&K And Ladakh High Court Upholds Construction Workers Cess Act For Erstwhile J&K
Case Title : R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : OWP No. 1599/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 30
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the levy of cess on the cost of construction under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, holding that the Cess Act is an extension and integral part of the law governing the employment and welfare of construction workers. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held, “The Cess Act must be considered and treated to be an extension and integral part of the BOCW Act. The Cess Act does provide for levy and collection of cess but clearly provides in Section 3 that the purpose of collection of levy and cess is for giving effect to the BOCW Act. The predominant object and purpose of the Cess Act is to garner finances and augment the resources for the Workers' Welfare Boards constituted under the BOCW Act,” the Bench held.
Case Title : Uflex Ltd. v. UT of J&K and Others
Case Number : WP (C) No. 2950/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 31
On 16 September, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stayed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the petitioner challenged the invocation of the provision in the absence of foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Shahzad Azeem issued notice to the respondents and stayed the effect and operation of the notice, which demanded around Rs. 3.88 crore in tax from Uflex Limited for the financial year 2020-21.
Case Title : Biostadt India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : WP(C ) No.2058/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 32
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that refunds of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess granted under the law prevailing at the time cannot be recovered merely because the Supreme Court later overruled that position in Unicorn Industries v. Union of India. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that once a subsequent judgment overrules an earlier decision on a point of law, the earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed on that basis.
Karnataka HC
Future Commercial Use Cannot Determine Stamp Duty Value: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Disthi Vishal Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 2023 (GM-ST/RN)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 152
Recently, the Karnataka High Court quashed orders demanding differential stamp duty on a 37-acre land parcel in Hassan district, holding that authorities cannot determine the value of land merely on the basis of an alleged intention to use it for resort or commercial purposes, unless such intended use is established through relevant documents. Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed a writ petition filed by Disthi Vishal Pvt. Ltd. and another, challenging orders passed by the District Registrar and the Regional Commissioner under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Adjustment Of Excess Excise Duty Payment Towards Dues Of Another Firm
Case Title : The State of Karnataka v. Manoji
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO.100084 OF 2025 (EXCISE)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 153
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the adjustment of an excess excise duty payment made towards the dues of one firm against the outstanding liability of another firm under the State's Karasamadhana-IV Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Justice Lalitha Kanneganti and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the State's appeal against the order of the Single Judge directing the authorities to adjust the excess amount of ₹43.23 lakh paid towards the liability of Nagalingaswami Trading Company (NTC) against the dues of M/s Torgal Group (TG).
Karnataka High Court Directs Authorities To Decide Contractor's ₹2.99 Crore GST Claims
Case Title : Shri Jinaraj and Co Registered v. The Executive Engineer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 103475 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 154
The Karnataka High Court on 29 August directed government authorities to consider and decide a civil contractor's claim for payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on road construction and improvement works. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that government authorities must examine a civil contractor's claim for payment of GST on road construction and improvement works by scrutinising the tender conditions, invoices, bills and payments to determine whether the GST component had already been paid.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Orders Enforcing 2% Cess On Cinema Tickets, Allows Multiplexes' Plea
Case Title : Multiplex Association of India v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WP 28571/2026
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a plea filed by the Multiplex Association of India and PVR INOX Limited against the enforcement of the 2% cess imposed on cinema tickets under the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024. Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad held that the measures seeking to operationalise and enforce the cess could not be sustained as the 2024 Act had not been brought into force through a valid commencement notification under Section 1(2).
Karnataka High Court Holds GST Payments Made During Investigation Were Not Voluntary, Orders Refund
Case Title : M/s Hukkeri Taluka Samagra v. ITS President
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 108177 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 157
The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST authorities to refund ₹53.97 lakh collected from a taxpayer during an investigation, holding that the payments could not be treated as voluntary payments under the GST law. Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that there was no material to show that the taxpayer had voluntarily ascertained his tax liability before making the payments. The Court also noted that no prior demand or assessment had been made before the payments and that the authorities had not issued the required DRC-04 acknowledgments.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Cross-Subsidy Surcharge On Bagasse-Based Power Plants
Case Title : The Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and Others
Case Number : W.P. No.104538 of 2022 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 159
The Karnataka High Court has upheld cross-subsidy surcharge demands against bagasse-based cogeneration units, holding that exempting solar power projects from the levy while imposing it on bagasse-based cogeneration plants was not discriminatory. Bagasse is the fibrous residue left after sugarcane is crushed to extract its juice Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Ugar Sugar Works Limited,Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit and Godavari Biorefineries Limited.
Case Title : M/s King Enterprise v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)
Case Number : WP No. 107390 of 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 164
The Karnataka High Court on 11 September set aside a GST tax and penalty demand of Rs. 91,00,384 against King Enterprise, finding that the proceedings had been completed ex parte without affording the business an effective opportunity to present its case. Justice T.M. Nadaf set aside the tax and summary orders against the company and remanded the matter to the tax authority for fresh consideration.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North v. Spoton Logistics Private Limited
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 175
The Karnataka High Court on 24 September held that an appeal against an order of a Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the classification and taxability of services as “Goods Transport Agency” (GTA) service lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not before the High Court under Section 35G. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Devdas and K. Manmadha Rao dismissed the Central Excise Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North, against the CESTAT order dated 23 April 2025 concerning Spoton Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka High Court Says Pregnancy Justifies Absence From GST Proceedings, Remands Ex-Parte Order
Case Title : M/s Ganga Medical Stores v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), DGSTO, Bidar & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 202258 of 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 176
The Karnataka High Court on 18 September held that an ex-parte GST adjudication order can be set aside where a taxpayer's non-appearance is sufficiently justified, including on account of pregnancy and related medical complications. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil of the Kalaburagi Bench allowed a writ petition filed by Soumya, proprietrix of Ganga Medical Stores, against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bidar and the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Microsoft India In CENVAT Refund Case
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 179
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against a tribunal order holding that Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to a cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on services provided to its overseas entities. A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice K. Manmadha Rao was hearing the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) December 9, 2024 order.
Property Acquisition By State Not A Supply Of Goods Or Services: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Subbaiah A.P. v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 25600 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 180
The Karnataka High Court has held that compulsory acquisition of immovable property by the State in exercise of eminent domain does not amount to a supply of goods or services liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). Justice R. Nataraj quashed the deduction of Rs. 12,28,906 towards GST from the compensation payable to four landowners whose house property was acquired for widening the Mysuru-Madikeri Highway.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds State Power To Levy ₹1,000 Per Seat For Permit Violations
Case Title : Smt. Nayaju Pote v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 32188 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 62
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25 August upheld the State Legislature's power to impose an additional levy on vehicles plying without a valid permit or in violation of permit conditions, holding that the levy is regulatory and compensatory rather than punitive. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed a challenge to Section 13(2)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, as substituted by the 2025 amendment. The provision imposes an additional levy of Rs. 1,000 per seat on specified passenger vehicles found operating without a valid permit or for a purpose contrary to the permit.
Furnace Oil And Light Diesel Oil Are Distinct, Cannot Be Taxed Alike: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 64
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 8 September held that Furnace Oil (FO) and Light Diesel Oil (LDO) are distinct commodities and cannot be taxed at the same rate merely because both are used as fuel. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed petitions filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), setting aside orders that had treated FO as LDO for taxation purposes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Advises GST Department To Send SMS/Email Alerts For Hearing Dates
Case Title : Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited Through Its Director Pawan Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 15843 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 68
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has advised the GST Department to introduce SMS or email alerts to parties or their advocates about hearing dates, after noting that many taxpayers were approaching the court complaining that they had not been served with hearing notices. A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi made the suggestion while allowing a petition filed by Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Upholds GST Authorities' Power To Block Electronic Credit Ledger For Tax Recovery
Case Title : M/s. Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner Coimbatore - I Division
Case Number : WP No. 32816 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 252
The Madras High Court on 25 August held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities can block an electronic credit ledger, including through a negative blocking entry, to recover tax dues, even where recovery proceedings arising from the assessment order have been stayed. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the ruling while disposing of a writ petition filed by Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions against the Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore-I Division.
Airport Entry-Ticket Licensee Liable For Service Tax Only From June 1, 2007: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Managing Director v. Airport Director
Case Number : OSA No. 321 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 254
The Madras High Court has ruled that an airport entry-ticket licensee was liable to pay service tax only from June 1, 2007, and not for the earlier period. The court observed that the law was amended from that date to specifically bring the renting of immovable property within the service tax net. For the period before June 1, 2007, it noted that the Delhi High Court had ruled that service tax did not apply to the rental/licence fee in question.
Madras High Court Says Appeal Against Fresh Assessment Order Statutorily Barred, Remands BHEL Matter
Case Title : M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : TC No. 16 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 258
The Madras High Court on 10 August remanded Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's (BHEL) tax matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala passed the order while disposing of a Tax Case Revision filed by BHEL against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The judges held: “The assessment orders in the instant case and the orders of the Appellate Authority are verbose and detailed. However, the fact remains that the exemption was claimed by the assessee in respect of inter-State sales during the transit of the goods, on the ground that the transactions involved specific boilers sold to its customers under a works contract and that the transfer falls within Section 6(2) of the CST Act”.
Case Title : Ramegowdu Mahendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP No. 32056 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 262
The Madras High Court has held that Income Tax authorities cannot rely solely on a GST adjudication order while conducting reassessment proceedings, cautioning that any reassessment must independently comply with the Income Tax Act. A single judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, however, declined to interfere with the Section 148 notice issued to a granite and tiles business proprietor for AY 2023-24, as the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage.
Case Title : The Madras Club v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : CMA No. 1327 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
The Madras High Court on 1 September directed the authorities to refund Rs.6.41 lakh to The Madras Club, after finding that the club had not passed on the tax burden to its members to that extent. A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan partly allowed the club's appeal against a CESTAT order rejecting its refund claim. The judges held: “...in respect of the portion of the amount in a sum of Rs.9,09,717/-, the appellant has already passed on the burden to its members. However, the remaining sum of Rs.6,41,369/- is yet to be received from the members. In other words, no burden has been passed on to the members to the extent of Rs.6,41,369/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to have refund only to the extent of Rs.6,41,369/-”
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thanjavur II Assessment Circle v. Nalini Cycle Mart
Case Number : W.A.(MD) No.429 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 266
The Madras High Court has ruled that a dealer eligible for the tax composition scheme cannot be denied its concessional rate when the assessing authority itself determines that the dealer's taxable turnover is below the ₹50 lakh limit. The bench held that the authority cannot rely on an earlier estimate showing turnover above the limit after finally fixing the taxable turnover below it. “The Assessing Officer could not maintain two contradictory positions in the same order, i.e., on one hand, accepting that the dealer's total turnover was Rs.37,28,468/- (below Rs.50 Lakhs), and on the other hand, applying a tax rate of 14.5% meant for non-composition dealers on the ground that the turnover had crossed Rs.50 Lakhs,” a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice C.V. Karthikeyan observed.
Case Title : Inspector General of Registration & Ors. v. N. Natarajan
Case Number : W.A. No. 2438 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 268
The Madras High Court has ruled that the three-year limitation for recovering deficit stamp duty runs from the date a document is registered and not from the date the Registration Department initiates proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose and Justice R. Rajesh Vivekananthan observed: “Therefore, as per second proviso to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, for the purpose of calculating limitation, the starting date for calculating the period of limitation, is the date of registration of the instrument and not the date, when the proceedings were initiated by the Registration Department for collection of deficit stamp duty.”
Case Title : M/s Inzi Controls India Limited v. Joint Commissioner (ST) Appeals & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 31862 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 267
The Madras High Court on 8 September set aside appellate orders concerning the classification of air and oil filters manufactured by Inzi Controls India Limited and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order in a batch of petitions filed by Inzi Controls, which manufactures air and oil filters supplied to automobile companies. The company had classified the filters under Chapter 84, while the Tax Department treated them as motor vehicle parts under Chapter 87.
Deficit Stamp Duty, Interest Demand Must Be Raised Within Reasonable Time: Madras High Court
Case Title : Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v. K.K.V. Seetharaman & Ors.
Case Number : WA No. 3175 of 2023 and CMP No. 26032 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 269
The Madras High Court on 7 September held that a demand for deficit stamp duty and interest must be raised within a reasonable period, while clarifying that proceedings to determine deficit stamp duty need only be initiated within five years of registration. A Division Bench of Justices Abdul Quddhose and R. Rajesh Vivekananthan dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and upheld the direction to release two documents presented for registration by K.K.V. Seetharaman and K. Anitha.
Case Title : M/s Dhruv Jewellers v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 37046 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 271
The Madras High Court has directed the defreezing of a bullion account belonging to a Chennai-based jewellery exporter. It held that a provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act cannot continue beyond the maximum statutory period of 12 months. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order on a plea filed by Dhruv Jewellers, challenging a communication dated August 4, 2022, issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to the bank directing it to freeze the firm's bullion account.
Madras High Court Quashes ₹20 Lakh Penalty On Customs Broker, Finds No Proof Of Collusion
Case Title : M/s. Newport Shipping and Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I
Case Number : WP No. 522 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 276
The Madras High Court on 17 September set aside the Rs. 20 lakh penalty imposed on Newport Shipping and Logistics, holding that the material relied upon by the Customs authorities did not establish the broker's knowledge, conscious involvement or collusion in the attempted export of prohibited bull/ox meat. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that a Customs Broker cannot be held liable for abetment of the attempted export of prohibited goods merely on the basis of routine activities such as filing shipping bills, arranging containers and processing documents, unless there is material showing that the broker knowingly aided or colluded with the exporter.
Case Title : Fiverose Abdul Majeed Bathurudeen v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(MD) Nos.27107
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 278
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed a mother and her minor daughter to approach the Customs authorities for the return of gold jewellery detained at Trichy Airport. The Court directed them to submit an application before the Customs authorities seeking return of the jewellery. Justice C. Saravanan passed the order while disposing of petitions filed by the mother and daughter challenging the detention of gold jewellery weighing 22.20 grams and 30.50 grams, valued at ₹2.89 lakh and ₹3.97 lakh respectively.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Bank Guarantee Condition For Provisional Release Of ASC Impex Goods
Case Title : M/s ASC Impex v. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports - Gr.3)
Case Number : WP No. 25055 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 279
The Madras High Court on 18 September set aside a bank guarantee condition imposed for provisional release of imported Polyester Woven Fabric with PVC Coating detained from ASC Impex over a classification dispute. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed Customs to release the goods on payment of applicable duty and execution of a personal bond for the differential duty. The Bench held: “The purpose of provisional release is to ensure that the goods are not unnecessarily detained during the pendency of investigation or adjudication, while at the same time adequately protecting the interest of the Revenue. The conditions imposed for provisional release must therefore be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.”
Case Title : State Tax Officer v. M/s Sree Amman Traders & connected matters
Case Number : W.A. No. 687 of 2026 & connected writ appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 280
The Madras High Court has ruled that Central and State GST officers can exercise cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even without a separate government notification. The notification is required only when the government wants to impose conditions on the exercise of those powers, the court observed. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of 22 writ appeals. Sixteen were filed by State GST authorities and six by Central GST authorities.
DIN On Tax Appellate Order Does Not Prove It Was Delivered To Taxpayer: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II)
Case Number : CMA Nos. 2132 of 2026 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 282
The Madras High Court has held that the presence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on an appellate order does not, by itself, establish that the order was served on the assessee. The court ruled that the DIN cannot be used to establish the date of service for calculating the limitation period for an appeal. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of nine appeals filed by Greaves Cotton Ltd. challenging CESTAT orders dismissing its Service Tax appeals as barred by limitation.
Charitable Donations Not Taxable As 'Sponsorship' Without Reciprocal Obligation: Madras High Court
Case Title : Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : CMA(MD) NO. 1121 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 284
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 16 September held that charitable contributions cannot be treated as taxable sponsorship services where the recipient is not under an obligation to provide anything in return. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi set aside the entire service tax demand raised against Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. They held that the Revenue failed to prove most contributions were sponsorship services, while noting that even the two qualifying transactions were time-barred.
Madras High Court Says Precision Instruments Used In Manufacturing Eligible For 3% Sales Tax Rate
Case Title : The State Of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Bombay Tools Supplying
Case Number : TC Nos. 15 ,16 of 2018 & 91 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 285
The Madras High Court has held that precision instruments such as Vernier Calipers, Depth Gauges and Cylinder Gauges used by manufacturers in Tamil Nadu qualify for a 3% concessional tax rate when sold against Form XVII declarations, even though the instruments are not consumed in the manufacturing process A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice E. Manoharan observed that the benefit under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 extends to “any goods” used in manufacturing in Tamil Nadu, even if such goods are not consumed or incorporated into the finished product.
Meghalaya HC
Meghalaya High Court Sets Aside Service Tax Demand Over 8.5-Year Adjudication Delay
Case Title : Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme v/s Additional Director General
Case Number : WP (C ) No.377 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 5
The Meghalaya High Court has recently set aside a service tax demand against the Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme (ARGIS). It held that the Revenue authorities could not justify taking nearly 8.5 years to adjudicate the show-cause notice. The Division Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee observed that the delay was “undue and unexplained”. It held that the order passed after such a delay violated Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and was “arbitrary and bad in law”.
Patna HC
Case Title : M/s Nxtify Technologies Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 2517 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 25
The Patna High Court has recently ruled that a person whose bank account has been provisionally attached under the Customs Act must be given an opportunity of hearing before the attachment is extended. A hearing offered after the extension has already been ordered cannot cure the defect, the court held. A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra made the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Nxtify Technologies Private Limited to the extent indicated in the judgment.
Case Title : Moral Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5336 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 28
The Patna High Court has rejected a challenge to three CBIC circulars assigning “proper officer” functions to Central Tax officers under the GST law, agreeing with the Bombay High Court's reasoning on the issue. “An analysis of the Notification dated 19.06.2017 and the other two Circulars would lead this Court to agree with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court,” a Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab & Haryana High Court Disposes Sony India Plea Against 2006 VAT Entry Substitution
Case Title : Sony India Private Limited v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Others
Case Number : CWP-26418-2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 50
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of a plea filed by Sony India Private Limited concerning its claim for a concessional VAT rate of 4% on Digital Still Image Cameras, holding that the company was not prejudiced by the notification it had challenged. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor observed that the expression “IT Products”, which formed the basis of Sony's claim for the concessional rate, continued to remain part of Entry No. 60 even after its amendment.
Case Title : National Fertilizers Limited v. State of Punjab & Others
Case Number : CWP-17189 of 1995
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 54
On 18 September, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an ammonia gas storage tank forming an integral part of a manufacturing plant cannot be subjected in its entirety to house tax by treating it as a “building”. A Division Bench of Justices Deepak Sibal and Rupinderjit Chahal passed the ruling while dealing with cross-petitions filed by National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) and the Municipal Council, Nangal over house tax imposed on an ammonia gas storage tank at NFL's fertiliser plant.
Case Title : Kuldeep Goyal v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CWP-31964-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 57
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the immediate release of a man arrested by GST authorities after he appeared before them pursuant to the court's direction to cooperate with the investigation. A Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that Goyal had appeared before the authorities with the documents sought by them. The matter was already pending before the court and was listed for September 29, when the authorities were expected to report on the status of the investigation.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Notice And ₹3.13 Lakh Demand Against Mayur Timber
Case Title : M/s Mayur Timber v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 41
The Rajasthan High Court on 11 August set aside an unsigned Goods and Services Tax (GST) show-cause notice and consequential demand of over Rs. 3.13 lakh raised against Mayur Timber, along with interest of Rs. 4,26,002 and an equivalent penalty. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar held that mere generation of a document on the GST portal or allotment of a reference number cannot replace the mandatory requirement of authentication under Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.
No Customs Interest On Capital Goods Kept In Bonded Warehouse Until Clearance: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur NCR Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur v. M/s Acme Aklera Power Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : D.B. Custom Appeal No. 1/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 45
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the setting aside of a ₹2.88-crore customs interest demand on solar modules imported by Acme Aklera Power Technology Pvt. Ltd. It held that interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act cannot be charged on capital goods covered by Section 61(1)(a). A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that such capital goods can remain in a warehouse until clearance if they are intended for use in a warehouse where manufacture or other operations are permitted under Section 65. The Court said no fixed period applies to such goods for triggering interest.
Case Title : Greens And Grows v. The Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 46
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a taxpayer who declares the full service tax liability under the voluntary disclosure category of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme cannot later seek adjustment of an earlier tax payment against that declared amount, ruling that the statutory scheme treats the figure voluntarily declared as the tax due. A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that in a voluntary disclosure case, the amount declared by the taxpayer itself is treated as the tax dues under Section 123(d) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.
Rajasthan High Court Declines Writ Against Entry Tax Assessment, Says Appeal Is Equally Efficacious
Case Title : M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 867/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 47
The Rajasthan High Court on 6 August held that a statutory appeal under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 is an equally efficacious remedy against an assessment order, including a challenge based on limitation. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar disposed of a writ petition filed by Sika India Pvt. Ltd. challenging an assessment order dated 18 December 2018 and the consequential demand of Rs. 21.24 lakh towards entry tax, interest and penalty.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Challenge To GST Provision Requiring Supplier Tax Payment For ITC
Case Title : Sumetco Alloys Private Limited v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9323/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 48
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that actual payment of tax by the supplier is a valid condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed Sumetco Alloys Private Limited's challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as well as its challenge to a Rs. 56.44 crore GST demand for the financial years 2020-21 to 2023-24.
Sikkim HC
Sikkim High Court Sets Aside ₹37.93 Lakh Recovery Against Lupin Limited, Directs Fresh Review
Case Title : Lupin Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 24 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(SIK) 3
On 23 September, the Sikkim High Court set aside a Rs. 37.93 lakh recovery against Lupin Limited under the Budgetary Support Scheme, directing the tax authorities to reconsider the matter after examining the company's explanation and supporting documents. Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque found that the authorities had not properly considered Lupin's explanation on the ITC reflected in its GSTR-2A before concluding that it had received excess benefit under the scheme.
Telangana HC
Telangana High Court Quashes ₹52.39 Crore VAT Demand On TCS's Customised Software Services
Case Title : Tata Consultancy Services v. The Asst. Commissioner (CT) VMU-1, Hyderabad (Rural) Division, Hyderabad and 5 Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.12763 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 66
The Telangana High Court has set aside a ₹52.39 crore Value Added Tax (VAT) demand imposed on Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). It held that transactions involving the development of custom-made or customised software did not constitute a sale where TCS did not acquire ownership or title over the software. The Court found that there was no transfer of property in goods. A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda passed the common order. It allowed the lead writ petition and the other writ petitions on similar lines.
Telangana High Court Upholds Gimpex's Target Plus Duty Exemption, Says Broad Nexus Sufficient
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Gimpex Limited
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL Nos.2, 26 & 27 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 68
The Telangana High Court on 11 August upheld the relief granted to Gimpex Limited, holding that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed that a strict product-to-product nexus between imported and exported goods was not required to claim duty exemption under the Target Plus Scheme. A broad nexus between the goods was sufficient.
Case Title : ADV Industrial Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 3663 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 74
The Telangana High Court has recently ruled that a GST refund authority cannot reopen an ITC dispute already decided by an appellate authority merely because the department proposes to challenge that order. An appellate order remains operative unless it is stayed, modified, or set aside in accordance with law. If the department seeks to withhold the refund while further proceedings are pending, it must comply with the requirements of Section 54(11) of the CGST Act.
Uttarakhand HC
Pidilite's SBR Latex Products Covered By 'Rubber' Entry, Taxable At 5%: Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chairman, Commercial Tax Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Tax Revision No. 10 of 2025 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 12
The Uttarakhand High Court held that Pidilite Industries' Dr. Fixit Pidicrete URP and Dr. Fixit Super Latex, being Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) Latex, fall within the term “rubber” under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act and are taxable at 5%, rather than the 13.5% rate applicable to unclassified goods. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay set aside a Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgment and restored the First Appellate Authority's order classifying the products under Entry 96 of Schedule II-B of the Uttarakhand VAT Act.
CESTAT
Case Title : M/s BASF Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41001 of 2017 & 40212 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BOM) 538
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 August held that excess service tax paid by a taxpayer can be adjusted against tax liability arising in later months or quarters and is not restricted to the immediately succeeding month or quarter. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed appeals filed by BASF Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in South India Aluminium Company v. CGST & Central Excise, Chennai, which had settled the issue.
Case Title : Imperial Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.-Mundra
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 10121 & 10122 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 539
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 31 August held that the Customs Department cannot deny preferential tariff benefit or invoke the extended limitation period against an importer merely on the suspicion that Certificates of Origin are fraudulent, without completing the prescribed verification process and establishing the importer's involvement in the alleged fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed appeals filed by Imperial Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Varun Goyal against a Customs duty demand arising from imports of polyester knitted fabrics.
Sugar Syrup With 80% Sugar Used To Make Exempt Biscuits Is Excisable: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ETC Agro Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Gandhinagar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11396 of 2013-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 540
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 31 August held that sugar syrup containing 80% sugar by weight is marketable and liable to excise duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed the appeal filed by ETC Agro Processing (India) Pvt. Ltd. against a demand of around Rs.49.68 lakh, while remanding the matter for verification and grant of eligible CENVAT credit on sugar used to manufacture the syrup.
CESTAT New Delhi Bars Extended Limitation Where RCM Liability Is Revenue-Neutral
Case Title : M/s Kaps Advertising v. Joint Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51741 of 2025 (SM)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 541
On 3 September, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) observed that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where service tax payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) would have been available as CENVAT credit, as such a revenue-neutral situation does not establish an intention to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed an appeal filed by Kaps Advertising, restricting the service tax demand to the normal period of limitation and setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹1.80 Crore SAD Demand Against Emerson Process Management
Case Title : Amit Paithankar & Anr. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), JNCH & connected appeal
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 85270, 85271 & 85291 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 542
On 2 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside a Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) demand of Rs.1,79,95,057 against Emerson Process Management (India) Private Limited for the period from April 2012 to July 2013. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts or mala fide intention, as the company's claim for SAD exemption was based on the understanding prevailing among the concerned government authorities.
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹93.75 Lakh Demand Against HCL, Upholds BPO Works Contract Credit Denial
Case Title : HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70612 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 543
On 1 September, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because input services were received at premises not included in the taxpayer's centralised registration, while upholding denial of credit on works contract services used for construction or setting up of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) branches. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava partly allowed HCL Technologies Ltd.'s appeal against a demand of Rs. 2.06 crore, comprising Rs. 93.75 lakh in CENVAT credit on services received at its Chennai, Hyderabad and Gurgaon premises before their inclusion in the centralised registration and Rs. 1.12 crore on works contract services used at its BPO premises.
Case Title : Shri G. Janardhanan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21090 & 21091 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 544
On 3 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, held that composite works contracts involving both supply of materials and services cannot be subjected to service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (MMRS). A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside service tax demands against Kerala Public Works Department contractor G. Janardhanan for repair, reconstruction and maintenance works relating to irrigation canals and allowed his appeals.
CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Customs Duty Exemption For Reliance's Plant Used In Petroleum Operations
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada v. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.: 30057 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 545
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad has upheld customs duty exemption for Reliance Industries Ltd. on its import of a Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant used in petroleum operations. It ruled that the benefit could not be denied merely because the plant was classified under a different tariff heading from Heading 8430, which was mentioned alongside the relevant entry in the exemption list.
Case Title : Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Noida
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 71114 of 2018 and Excise Appeal No. 70395 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 546
The Allahabad CESTAT has ruled that a manufacturer cannot automatically rely on a declared sale price for excise valuation merely because the buyer is an independent party when the price is substantially and continuously below the cost of manufacture. The tribunal made the finding in appeals filed by Eveready Industries India Ltd. over the valuation of batteries supplied to two torch manufacturers.
Case Title : JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 41996 & 41997 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 547
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has allowed JSW Steel Ltd.'s claim for a ₹1.62 crore refund of excess export duty. It held that the limitation period could not be counted from the date of the original payment when the excess amount was identified only upon reassessment in 2015. The bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the additional amount paid by JSW Steel was never reflected in the shipping bills, Let Export Orders or any other contemporaneous assessment record.
No Separate DCGI Approval Needed For Service Tax Exemption On Drug Testing: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Consortium Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41928 & 41929 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE)548
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that Service Tax exemption for clinical testing of newly developed drugs cannot be denied merely because a Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) does not have a separate approval from the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). The tribunal found that the drug Sponsors had obtained DCGI-approved permissions for the clinical trials. Consortium Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. (CCRP), acting as the CRO, conducted the clinical trials under written agreements with the Sponsors.
Renting Vacant Land Not Service Taxable Before July 1, 2010: CESTAT Delhi Denies Extended Limitation
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal v. M/s Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51919 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 549
The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that renting of vacant land was not taxable for service tax before July 1, 2010. It also held that one-time premium or salami received under a lease of immovable property was liable to service tax, but the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited without an intent to evade tax or positive evidence of suppression. The tribunal observed, “the immovable property including the vacant land is leviable to service tax with effect from 01.07.2010. Prior thereto renting of vacant land was not taxable.”
Case Title : M/s. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40693 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 550
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 September held that statutory dues owed to the Central Government, State Government or local authority, which are not included in a resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), stand extinguished and proceedings concerning such dues cannot be continued. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao was dealing with a customs appeal filed by Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
Case Title : FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42475 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 552
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 September held that an authorised courier cannot be penalised merely because prohibited goods are found concealed in an export consignment, unless the Revenue establishes the courier's knowledge, participation or a specific act or omission connecting it with the attempted improper export. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by FedEx Express Transportation and Supply Chain Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. against penalties imposed on its predecessor TNT India Pvt. Ltd. after pseudoephedrine hydrochloride was discovered concealed inside garments forming part of an export consignment.
CESTAT Chennai Upholds Toyota's Classification Of Nine Imported Sensors, Sets Aside Reclassification
Case Title : Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40266, 40267 and 40268 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 553
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd.'s classification of nine imported sensors as thermistors, gas-analysis apparatus, measuring or checking instruments, motor-vehicle parts and electrical apparatus. “The goods have to be classified in the condition in which they are imported, having regard to their objective characteristics and function,” the tribunal observed.
Aircraft Flown Commercially Without DGCA Approval Cannot Claim Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Mega Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Preventive
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 540, 541 & 542 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 554
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that an aircraft imported duty-free for non-scheduled charter services cannot retain the exemption when it is commercially operated without the DGCA approval required under the exemption. A bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technicla Member P.V. Subba Rao was dealing with appeals filed by Mega Corporation Ltd., its Managing Director Kunal Lalani, and CEO Anil Kumar Soni.
Cost Of Tools, Dies Used To Make Auto Parts Must Be Amortized For Excise Duty: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Mahindra CIE Automotive Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 52057 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 555
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the entire cost of tools and dies cannot be added to the assessable value of automobile parts. Only their amortized value can be included. “There cannot be any dispute that the final products cannot be manufactured without the tools and dies and, therefore, their value should included. However, they are not used only once but over and over again. Therefore, the cost of the tool or die has to be spread over all the goods manufactured using it. This is done through an accounting method known as amortization in which the total value of the tool or die is divided over the number of final goods which are likely to be products using it and proportionate value of the tools and dies is added to each good,” the tribunal observed.
Recovery Agent Services For Defaulted Loans Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41098 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 556
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 September held that services of recovery or collection agents used by a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) for recovering defaulted loans qualify as “input services” for claiming CENVAT credit. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed four appeals filed by TVS Credit Services Ltd., which had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services provided by recovery agents.
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Noida
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70366 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 557
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad on Thursday held that the 2016 amendment to the CENVAT credit reversal formula under Rule 6(3A) was clarificatory in nature. The amendment clarified that, for calculating the credit to be proportionately reversed, credit used exclusively for taxable services or dutiable goods is not to be included; only common CENVAT credit is relevant. The court observed that Notification No. 13/2016-CE (NT) dated March 1, 2016 substituted the Rule 6(3A) formula “in its entirety so as to bring about clarity in its interpretation”.
CESTAT Delhi Allows ₹6.51 Crore CENVAT Credit To Bharat Aluminium On Coal Supplier's Invoices
Case Title : Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51058 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 558
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently allowed Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) to claim CENVAT credit of ₹6.51 crore on supplementary invoices issued by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). The tribunal held that the invoices were eligible for credit because SECL's earlier short-payment of excise duty was not due to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax v. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30139 of 2020 with ST/Cross/30114/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 559
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has ruled that meter-testing charges collected by an electricity distribution utility are naturally bundled with distribution of electricity and cannot be taxed separately. “We accordingly hold that meter-testing is ancillary and naturally bundled element of distribution of electricity. The activity takes its tax character from the principal service falling within Section 66D(k) of the Finance Act, 1994,” Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed.
CENVAT Credit Available On Depot Clearing And Forwarding Services: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Madras Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26436 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 560
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit is admissible on clearing and forwarding services provided at an assessee's depots. This includes receipt, unloading, storage, handling and loading of cement at depots from where the goods were subsequently sold. The tribunal observed, “Such services have a direct nexus with the appellant's business of manufacture and sale of cement and are eligible input services.”
Declared Goods Used To Conceal Undeclared Imports Can Be Confiscated: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Ashtvinayak and Company v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70317 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 561
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has ruled that declared goods can also be confiscated when they are used to conceal large quantities of undeclared goods. “It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the appellant was accompanied and used for concealment of large quantities of undeclared goods sought to be smuggled in to India by violating the provisions of Trade Markets and Intellectual Property Laws,” Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava observed.
Interest On EMI Loans Through Credit Cards Not Taxable As Credit Card Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Citi Bank N.A. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40742 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 562
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that interest earned on EMI-based loans routed through credit card accounts cannot be treated as consideration for credit card services. This is so merely because the loans are administered and recovered through those accounts. The ruling came while setting aside a ₹249.35 crore service tax demand against Citibank N.A. The bench comprised Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao.
Written Acceptance Of Enhanced Customs Value Does Not Bar Statutory Appeal: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Maruti Fabric Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70412 of 2020 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 563
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has reiterated that an importer's written acceptance of an enhanced assessable value does not, by itself, prevent the importer from challenging the reassessment in appeal. Relying on the Delhi High court's ruling in Niraj Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Patparganj, the tribunal held that accepting a reassessment and giving up a speaking order are not the same as giving up the statutory right to challenge the reassessment.
Case Title : M/s Tasha Gold Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50760 of 2025 with connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 564
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an importer claiming exemptions under multiple customs notifications must comply with the conditions prescribed under each notification. The tribunal observed that “strict interpretation to all notifications has simultaneously to be given”, and that the conditions of all the notifications have to be strictly complied with to avail their simultaneous benefit.
CESTAT Mumbai Directs Release Of Johnson & Johnson's SAD Refunds Adjusted Against Dropped Demand
Case Title : M/s Johnson & Johnson P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86961 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 565
On 11 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai allowed appeals filed by Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed: “This being admission of the Respondent-Department they should have released the amount adjusted against such drawback demand suo moto in favour of the Appellant but this has not been done.”
Mere Suspicion Over Freight Component Cannot Justify Rejection Of CIF Value: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (NS-I) & connected matter
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86309 & 86310 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)566
On 10 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, held that Customs cannot reject the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value declared by an importer merely on suspicion that freight and insurance were not included, unless there is evidence of any additional payment by the importer. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed appeals filed by I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Tarun Arora concerning the import of Royal Gala apples.
Case Title : Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41695 and 41696 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 567
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled that 'Processed Milk' emerging during the manufacture of sugar confectionery cannot be treated as an exempted final product merely because the milk itself is exempt from excise duty. The court observed, “An intermediate product captively consumed in, or sent to a job worker for, the manufacture of the dutiable final product cannot be equated with an exempted final product independently cleared from the factory.”
Partial Write-Offs Require CENVAT Credit Reversal From March 1, 2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : GE T&D Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41950 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 568
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a provision for partial write-off of inputs made on or after March 1, 2011 requires immediate reversal of the corresponding CENVAT credit. The credit can be re-availed if the inputs are subsequently used in manufacturing, subject to the assessee establishing such use. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar rejected GE T&D Ltd.'s appeal against a ₹8.57 lakh demand relating to CENVAT credit on provisions created for the write-off of raw materials during 2010-11 and 2011-12. The demand also carried applicable interest and penalty.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows MIRC Electronics CENVAT Credit On Commission, Insurance, Detention Charges
Case Title : MIRC Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Bhiwandi
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87863 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 569
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed MIRC Electronics Ltd. (OnIda Electronics) to claim CENVAT credit on brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance expenses. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty held that these expenses qualified as “input services” under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal, however, upheld the denial of credit on staff welfare expenses relating to canteen and bus facilities.
Ocean Freight Service Tax Refund Claim Filed After One Year Is Time-Barred: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : JK Tyre and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51784 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 570
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that a refund claim for service tax paid on ocean freight was subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as applicable to service tax. Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya ruled that the relevant date for calculating the limitation was the date on which the tax was paid. The subsequent finding by the Gujarat High court that the ocean-freight levy was unconstitutional did not take the refund claim outside the limitation prescribed under Section 11B.
Case Title : Nichirin Imperial Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj & Other ICDs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50248 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 571
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that a bracket used in brake hose assemblies should be classified as a motor vehicle part based on its principal use for customs duty purposes. It also held that a connector specifically designed for automobile brake systems could not be classified as a generic plumbing fitting. A Bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Nichirin Imperial Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. against the customs duty demand arising from alleged misclassification of imported automobile components.
Case Title : Fritzmeier Motherson Cabin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41542 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 572
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that drawings and designs supplied free of cost by customers cannot be added to the assessable value of motor cabins merely because they were supplied free of cost. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed: “A free supply does not of itself displace the sole consideration condition. It displaces that condition only if it satisfies the conditions stated in Explanation 1 and in any one of its clauses, and whether it does is precisely the enquiry which was never undertaken.”
Tax On Services From Foreign Providers Based On Receipt Date, Not Payment Date: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Bay Forge Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41472 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 573
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that the rate of service tax applicable to services received from foreign service providers is determined by the date of receipt, and not the subsequent date of payment The later date of payment to the foreign service provider does not determine the applicable rate under the reverse charge mechanism. The bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed, “We accordingly do not follow Adani Enterprises, and hold that it is the date on which the service is received, not the date of payment, that governs.”
CESTAT Chennai Quashes Royalty Addition To CET Power Solutions' Import Value, Says Sale Nexus Needed
Case Title : M/s. CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40187 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 574
On 22 September, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the order adding royalty paid by CET Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. to its foreign collaborator to the assessable value of imported goods. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that royalty paid to a foreign collaborator cannot be added to the assessable value of imported goods merely because the imported components are used to manufacture finished products.
Case Title : Navnit Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, MUMBAI WEST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85320 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 575
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 September set aside a Rs. 17.39 crore service tax demand against Navnit Motors, an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover vehicles, on incentives, discounts and reimbursements received from vehicle manufacturers. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the receipts could not be treated as consideration for a taxable service merely because Navnit Motors was required to meet sales targets or undertake related activities.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹42.78 Lakh Demand Against Belle Vue Clinic Over Expense Reimbursements
Case Title : M/s. Belle Vue Clinic v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.77175 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 576
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 September set aside the Rs. 42.78 lakh service tax demand against Belle Vue Clinic for the period October 2010 to March 2015. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that reimbursements towards proportionate common expenses could not be included in the taxable value of services before 14 May 2015, when the law was amended to specifically cover reimbursable expenditure.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹6.01 Crore Duty Demand Against Navayuga Engineering Over Helicopter Parts
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) v. Navayuga Engineering Company Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87625 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 577
On 22 September, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a Rs. 6.01 crore customs duty demand against Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, holding that helicopter parts used to transport personnel for infrastructure projects qualified as “capital goods” eligible for customs duty exemption. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban also held that Navayuga and Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited (KPCL) qualified as “group companies” under the Foreign Trade Policy, allowing the former to use KPCL's scripts.
Case Title : J.R. Smelters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40089/2014, 40161/2014, 40162/2014, 40163/2014, 40543/2014 and 40544/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 578
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has held that the classification of used railway rails depends on their condition and usability at the time of import, rather than simply on their original identity as railway rails. Where imported material was extensively rusted, cut, damaged and no longer fit for use as railway material, it was classifiable under Heading 7204 as ferrous waste and scrap, the tribunal ruled.
Case Title : Senior Manager (P & S), Western Railway Printing Press v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Mumbai Central CGST Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87656 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 579
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has held that railway-specific printed stationery made exclusively for Western Railway's own use was not liable to excise duty because the Revenue failed to establish that the material could be bought and sold in the market. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹95.93 lakh excise duty demand against the Western Railway Printing Press, along with interest and a penalty equal to the duty.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹23.17 Crore Demand Against Toyota, Rejects Reclassification Of 226 Parts
Case Title : M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40185 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 580
On 23 September, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a Rs. 23.17 crore customs duty demand against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. over the classification of 226 imported motor vehicle parts. It also held that the extended limitation period was unavailable and set aside the confiscation, Rs. 17 crore redemption fine and penalty imposed on the company.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹1.26 Lakh Demand Against Canbank Factors Over 'Bank Charges' Classification
Case Title : M/s. Canbank Factors Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41248 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 581
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 23 September set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,26,841 against Canbank Factors Limited, holding that the Department had failed to establish the taxable character of the disputed receipts. A Bench comprising Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that bank charges cannot be subjected to service tax merely because they are recorded under a ledger-head bearing that description, unless the Revenue establishes that the receipts represent consideration for taxable services.
Mandatory Type Testing Charges Includible In Excise Value Of ACSR Conductors: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Smita Conductor Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise-Daman
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 12755 of 2019- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 582
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 September held that mandatory type-testing charges collected from a buyer form part of the assessable value of ACSR conductors for central excise purposes. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh upheld the central excise duty demand against Smita Conductors Ltd. on testing charges collected from Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. for type testing of ACSR conductors.
Case Title : Famous Steel v. Commissioner of Customs - Mundra Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10080 of 2024 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 583
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 September held that the Customs Department can demand differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act without first challenging an importer's self-assessment. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed an appeal filed by Famous Steel, observing that anti-dumping duty is a customs duty on which IGST is payable, while reducing the penalty imposed on the importer from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh.
NVOCC Cannot Charge Demurrage On Customs-Seized Goods Despite 60-Day SCMTR Rule: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Aegon Shipping India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86698 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 584
On 24 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai held that a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) acting as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) cannot charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by Customs, even if the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (SCMTR) permit recovery of detention charges after 60 days in specified circumstances.
Case Title : Wellknown Polyesters Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87731 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 585
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that thermic fluid used to initially charge and operate a Continuous Polycondensation (CP) plant qualifies as “capital goods” for customs duty exemption. “In view of the above discussion and analysis of the statutory provisions under FTP and the notification dated 14.09.2009 regarding the scope and coverage of 'capital goods', and the nature of thermic fluids viz., 'Dowtherm RP Heat Transfer Fluid' / 'Dowtherm A Heat Transfer Fluid', we are of the considered view that the impugned goods are covered under the definition of 'capital goods' and thus are eligible for availing exemption under the notification No. 104/2009-Customs dated 14.09.2009,” a Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban ruled.
Disposable Cuvettes Can Be Classified As Parts Of Diagnostic Equipment: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Roche Diagnostics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Import Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40705 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 586
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that specially designed micro-cuvettes used with Roche Diagnostics India's Cobas c111 analyser are classifiable as parts of the diagnostic equipment. It ruled that the cuvettes' disposable nature did not by itself prevent such classification. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar held that the “Integra Microcuvetten, Micro Cuvette Segment” was not merely a plastic container for holding the sample.
Case Title : Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75930 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 587
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that licence fees and additional licence fees paid by Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited to the Government of Odisha do not constitute consideration for any taxable service. A coram comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by the state government undertaking. It set aside the service tax demand of ₹53.88 crore, along with interest and penalties.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds Road Construction Services Provided To West Bengal Govt Exempt From Service Tax
Case Title : Gouri Construction v. Commissioner of CGST & CX
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75835 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 587
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹54.91 lakh service tax demand against a road construction contractor, holding that the services provided to the West Bengal Government were exempt from service tax. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Gouri Construction, a proprietorship concern engaged in construction of roads.
Case Title : Sagar Restaurant v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75570 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 589
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹13.20 lakh service tax demand on a Kolkata-based restaurant. It held that the amounts received under a revenue-sharing arrangement with a caterer were not consideration for providing Business Support Services. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) held that sales incentives received from distributors of alcoholic beverages, linked to the volume of sales, could not be treated as consideration for Advertisement Services.
Case Title : Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeal), CGST, Central Excise and Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 53954 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 590
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that an Indian exporter is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on charges deducted by foreign banks from export proceeds. The tribunal held that the services were received by the Indian bank, not the exporter, which had no contractual relationship with the foreign bank. A coram comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava allowed Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s appeal and set aside the ₹1.88 lakh service tax demand and penalty.
CESTAT Upholds Service Tax On ₹12.66 Lakh JMRC Payment To Chandpole Bazaar Association
Case Title : M/s. Chandpole Bazaar Vyapaar Mandal Samiti v. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST Jaipur, Rajasthan
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 591
On 28 September, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax liability on Rs. 12.66 lakh received by Chandpole Bazaar Vyapaar Mandal Samiti from Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation (JMRC) towards publicity and advertisement activities during Diwali celebrations. A Bench comprising Officiating President Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao upheld the taxability of the amount while setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur's direction to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority.
Case Title : Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and Shri C. Saravanan v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41774 & 41775 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 592
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that electronic data and computer printouts cannot form the basis for determining Central Excise duty liability unless the statutory requirements for their admissibility are met. The tribunal discarded electronic records relied upon to quantify alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of TMT bars by Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. It set aside the order to the extent that the demand was quantified using those records and remanded the matter for fresh quantification.
CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Value Enhancement, Finds Import Data Missing From Acceptance Letters
Case Title : M/s Seafox Impex v. Commissioner, Customs, Noida and connected appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 70633/2021, 70695-70699/2025, 70265/2026 and 70266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 593
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently refused to treat an importer's written acceptance of enhanced customs values as conclusive after finding that the letters did not contain the contemporaneous import data cited as the basis for the enhancement. “Given the language as noted in some of the letters as written by the appellant and placed above, there is a wide gap which has not been bridged by the Revenue, in the matter. The contents of this communication cannot therefore be taken on its face value,” the tribunal observed.
GSTAT
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti-Profiteering v. Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/37/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 29
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has recently held that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they provide customers a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of failing to pass on a reduction in GST from 28% to 18% on MI LED Television 4A 80 cm from January 1, 2019. The tribunal found that the company had substantially complied with the anti-profiteering requirement, but had failed to account for ₹10,241.
Clerical Error Cannot Justify Denial Of Refund Of IGST Paid Twice: GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Case Title : M/s. Choice Cashew Industries v. Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APL/6/TVP/2026, APL/8/TVP/2026 & APL/9/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (THI) 30
On 17 September, the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that a clerical error in reporting export turnover in GSTR-3B cannot by itself justify denial of refund of IGST paid twice by an exporter. A Division Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram set aside the Orders rejecting Choice Cashew Industries' refund claims and allowed the three appeals with consequential reliefs. The Bench described the error as “making correct entries at wrong places”.
Mismatch In ITC Claim And Supplier Credit Alone Cannot Prove Wrongful ITC : GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Peekay Industries v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
Case Number : APL/34/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 31
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has held that a difference between the input tax credit (ITC) claimed by a taxpayer in its GST return and the credit reflected in the supplier-linked GSTR-2A statement cannot, by itself, prove that the ITC was wrongly availed. It observed that a mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, by itself, cannot establish that Input Tax Credit was wrongly claimed.
Case Title : Shree Contractor v. The Commissioner of CGST & CE Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APPEAL NO: APL/12/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (TRV) 32
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has held that the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) is not a “local authority” under the CGST Act. It consequently ruled that works contract services supplied to KWA were taxable at 18% from January 1, 2022, instead of the 12% rate paid by the assessee. A coram of Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram held that KWA does not fall within any of the categories of “local authority” specified under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Metalloids India, Pathanamthitta v. The Commissioner of State Tax Keralam State, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : Appeal No: APL/27/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (TRV) 33
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has held that when a job worker returns goods to the principal after completing the job work, the transaction value is limited to the job-work charges and applicable duties. The value of the original goods subjected to job work cannot be included in the consignment value declared in the e-way bill.
E-Way Bill Generated After Detention Cannot Cure GST Violation: GSTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Heramb Enterprises v. C Pushpalatha, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : APL/142/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 34
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, has dismissed an appeal against a penalty imposed on a taxpayer after GST authorities found that goods were being unloaded at a destination different from the one mentioned in the accompanying tax documents. The Tribunal held that the subsequent generation of an e-way bill and invoice after interception could not cure the violation under Section 129 of the CGST Act, as the required documents for the actual destination were not available when the vehicle was intercepted.
GSTAT Ernakulam Says ITC Eligibility Must Be Decided Under CGST Act, Sets Aside ₹7.07 Lakh Denial
Case Title : Augustan Textile Colours v. The Commissioner of State Tax, Keralam State, Thiruvananthapurm
Case Number : APPEAL NO: APL/23/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (EKM) 35
The Ernakulam Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 8 September held that refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the ground of ineligibility unless the credit is first disallowed through proceedings under the prescribed provisions of the GST law. A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram allowed the appeal filed by Augustan Textile Colours, a unit of Augustan Knitwear Pvt Ltd, and set aside the denial of Rs.7.07 lakh from its refund claim.
Case Title : Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Case Number : APL/11/RNC/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(RAN) 36
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ranchi, has held that an ITC reversal relating to an earlier tax period cannot automatically be deducted from the ITC availed during a refund period merely because the reversal was recorded during that period. The ruling concerned paragraph 43(c) of CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, which the Revenue relied on to argue that ITC reversed through GSTR-3B during the refund period could not be treated as ITC availed during that period.
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM
Case Number : NAPA/10/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 37
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 19 September directed Hyderabad-based cinema operator Devi 70MM to deposit Rs. 81,722 towards profiteering for failing to pass on the benefit of the reduction in GST on cinema admission tickets priced at Rs. 100 or below, which was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from 1 January 2019. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held that a cinema operator must pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction to viewers by correspondingly reducing ticket prices.
ITC Cannot Be Denied Solely Over GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A Mismatch: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : R R Infrastructure Projects v. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Additional Commissioner, Grade II Appeal & Ors.
Case Number : APL/7/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LKN) 38
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow on 18 September held that a mismatch between Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B (a self-declared summary return) and the credit reflected in GSTR-2A (an auto-generated statement of supplier filings), by itself, cannot justify denial of the credit. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra remanded R R Infrastructure Projects' ITC dispute for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to verify the claim on a category-wise and invoice-wise basis.
Case Title : Amit Tyagi v. Tata Play Limited, Managing Director & CEO
Case Number : APL/112/AGR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (AGR) 39
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra, on 10 September differed on whether mentioning an entirely different vehicle number in an e-way bill can attract penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act. A Split Bench of Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order deleting a Rs. 10,10,186 penalty imposed on Tata Play Limited after its vehicle was intercepted while transporting goods from Delhi to Lucknow.
GSTAT New Delhi Directs Bengal Emami Housing To Pass On ₹70.58 Lakh ITC Benefit To Homebuyers
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiterring v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/141/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 40
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed Bengal Emami Housing Ltd. to pay ₹70.58 lakh, including GST, to eligible homebuyers of its “Swan Court” project in Kolkata on account of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit. The Division Bench comprising President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta held that the profiteering computation should be confined to the Higher Income Group (HIG) category.
GSTAT Delhi Bench Sets Aside Profiteering Proceedings Against Vertex Homes Over ITC Benefit
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiterring v. Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/87/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 41
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, on 2 September set aside profiteering proceedings against Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. concerning its “Vertex Panache” project in Hyderabad, after finding that the increase in construction costs had offset the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Bench comprising Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) revised calculation of nil profiteering, after it deducted Rs. 3.49 crore in verified cost escalation from the developer's additional ITC benefit of Rs. 2.47 crore.
GSTAT Bengaluru Sets Aside 100% Penalty On I-NXT, Says ITC Mismatch Alone Can't Trigger Penalty
Case Title : I-NXT v. Sandeep Banga, Commissioner, Bengaluru Zone & Ors.
Case Number : APL/16/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 42
The Bengaluru Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 15 September held that an ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot, by itself, attract Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without establishing a link between the mismatch and fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman allowed I-NXT's appeal and set aside the 100% penalty imposed under Section 74.
Case Title : Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Sri Sai Traders
Case Number : APL/60/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (HYD) 43
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Hyderabad, on 18 September held that the GST Department cannot challenge orders restoring GST registrations after acting upon those orders and restoring the registrations. A Two-Member Bench comprising Judicial Member A P Ravi and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas disposed of 16 Department appeals as not maintainable, holding that they had become infructuous after the registrations were restored.
GSTAT Lucknow Says Mere E-Invoice Lapse Cannot Establish Tax Evasion, Sets Aside ₹63.72 Lakh Penalty
Case Title : VLM Null Group v. The Additional Commissioner, Grade II, Third & Ors.
Case Number : APL/98/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (LCK) 44
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 September held that a procedural lapse in generating an e-invoice, without material showing tax evasion, cannot by itself warrant penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar allowed VLM Null Group's appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II, State Tax, Kanpur, imposing a penalty of Rs. 63.72 lakh.
Authority For Advance Ruling
GST Payable On Godown Rent Even For Exempt Agricultural Warehousing: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/35
On 21 September, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that rent paid for hiring godowns from unregistered persons is taxable under GST under reverse charge, even when the godowns are used exclusively for providing exempt storage and warehousing services for agricultural produce. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Vora and CGST Member Vishal Malani disposed of the application filed by Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, holding that the hiring of godowns and the subsequent warehousing services are separate supplies.
Loading Ballast Into Railway Wagons Is Separate Service, Attracts 18% GST: Karnataka AAR
Case Title : In re: M/s S.K. Swamy and Company
Case Number : KAR ADRG/42/2026
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of ballast to the Railways and its subsequent loading into railway wagons are separate and independently identifiable supplies. The two activities cannot be treated as a composite supply merely because they arise from the same tender or work order. A Bench comprising Central Member Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and State Member Sivakumar S. Itagi, passed a ruling in an application filed by S.K. Swamy and Company concerning the GST rate applicable to loading ballast into Railway-owned wagons using JCB loaders.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GST Council Meeting Gets A New Date On Clash With BRICS Summit
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council Meeting has been postponed to October 7, 2026 owing to logistical clashes with the upcoming BRICS Summit. India is hosting the annual BRICS conference at New Delhi this year and discussions on economic balance amidst the West-Asia Crisis is expected. The GST Council met last time more than a year ago on September 3, 2025. In the last meeting, simplified slabs and a higher 40% slab for sin and luxury goods were recommended by the council.