LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
5 Oct 2026 3:01 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka's Retrospective Withdrawal Of Sales Tax Exemption For Imported Sugar
Case Title : Asia Sugar & Chemical Co., Davangere v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 235
The Supreme Court on Monday held that the Karnataka Legislature was competent to retrospectively withdraw the sales tax exemption available to imported sugar, but dealers who had acted under the earlier exemption regime cannot be subjected to penalties or retrospective interest. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale partly allowed the appeals arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANI
Case Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the Union of India's appeal questioning whether the Bombay High Court could grant Future Group non-executive director Sunil Biyani one week's protection from arrest after holding that his anticipatory bail plea was premature. The High Court had directed that if GST authorities subsequently authorise Biyani's arrest in an alleged ₹1,200 crore GST fraud probe, he should not be arrested for one week from the date the arrest order is communicated to him, allowing him time to seek legal remedies.
Supreme Court Directs FanMade11, 9Stacks To Pursue GST Appeal Instead Of Writ Petitions
Case Title : 9stacks Games vs Union Of India And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 174/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 240
The Supreme Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by two online gaming companies, FanMade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and 9Stacks, challenging GST proceedings against them. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard both pleas. The court directed both companies to pursue the statutory remedies available under the GST law instead of invoking its writ jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Holds BPCL, HPCL Liable For ₹16.6 Crore Service Tax For Marketing MGL's CNG
Case Title : Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai v. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 2471–2473 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 243
The Supreme Court on Monday held that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) are liable to pay more than ₹16.6 crore in service tax for facilitating the sale of Mahanagar Gas Ltd.'s (MGL) compressed natural gas (CNG). It ruled that the two public sector oil companies rendered Business Auxiliary Service to MGL by promoting and marketing its CNG, instead of purchasing and reselling the fuel. "The agent Corporations provide promotional services for marketing and sale of goods belonging to the MGL. Their activity stands squarely covered under Section 65(19) as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. MGL is the customer of services provided by the respondent Corporations and facilitated by such services, MGL sells the goods-CNG as marketed and promoted by the respondent Corporations to the vehicle owners as per the arrangement in the Agreements," the court held.
Case Title : Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 23931/2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 250
The Supreme Court has recently upheld the Gujarat High Court's judgment sustaining the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In doing so, it affirmed that a registered purchaser cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) unless the supplier has actually paid the tax charged on the underlying supply to the government. Upholding the High Court's judgment, the court observed, "High Court was fully justified in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm and uphold the impugned judgment."
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV v. M/s Xerox India Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 5939–5941 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 257
The Supreme Court has held that Xerox India's practice of grouping, plugging and pinning imported photocopier modules according to customers' requirements, commonly known as "kitting", did not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As no manufacturing activity was found, the company was not liable to pay central excise duty. The court reiterated that a process amounts to manufacture only if it results in a new product with a distinct name, character, and use.
Order Authorising Arrest Under GST Law Must Be Communicated Before Arrest: Supreme Court
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANI
Case Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that an order authorising arrest under the GST law must be communicated to the person concerned before the authorities proceed with the arrest. “To ensure that anyone who is facing the apprehension of arrest is not left in a position of irreparable damage, we have said that Section 69 [CGST Act] order has to be communicated,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held.
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE AND ANR. vs JAI KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Case Number : DIARY No. 41408/2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on the GST Department's plea challenging an Allahabad High Court order that set aside the remand of a person arrested under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had found that the grounds of arrest were not shown to have been served before his production before the Magistrate. The High Court also found that the arrest memo did not mention any annexure containing the grounds of arrest. The court relied on the January 13, 2025 CBIC instruction requiring that the grounds of arrest be furnished in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI VS M/S DIEBOLD SYSTEMS (P) LTD.
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4708-4711 OF 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 273
The Supreme Court has held that the Revenue cannot artificially split an indivisible turnkey contract and levy service tax on a notional portion of the total consideration towards installation and commissioning. Such segregation was not permitted under the law during the relevant period, from July 2003 to April 2006. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation while upholding a CESTAT order that had set aside service tax demands against Diebold Systems (P) Ltd. The top court dismissed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai.
Case Title : Audi Automobiles & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 10504-10506 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 274
The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that the Excise Department cannot invoke the extended limitation period when the relevant facts were already known to it. The court set aside an excise duty demand after finding that the Department knew the manufacturer had cleared the chassis at 110% of its manufacturing cost. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, however, upheld the Department's position on valuation. It ruled that the additional 10% included in the valuation of the chassis under Rule 8 had to be included while determining the assessable value of the completed vehicle.
Supreme Court Directs No Coercive Steps Against ITC In ₹11.59-Crore CST Demand
Case Title : ITC LTD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (LTU AND INT)
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.28364-28369/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against ITC Ltd in its challenge to the Telangana High Court judgment that upheld a ₹11.59 crore commercial tax demand on its inter State stock transfers. The High Court on July 22, 2026 dismissed ITC's six writ petitions. It held that the transactions involving movement of goods from Andhra Pradesh to other States were, in substance inter State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore liable to tax.
Supreme Court Upholds TVS Motor's Referral Charges As Business Auxiliary Service, Sets Aside Penalty
Case Title : M/s TVS Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 279
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that TVS Motor Company Limited was liable to pay service tax on referral charges it received from banks and an insurance company for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies, treating the charges as Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the penalty imposed on the company under Section 78 of the Finance Act, after finding that it had paid the entire service tax liability before the authorities issued the show-cause notice.
Supreme Court Dismisses GST Review Against Bharti Airtel And Others Over ITC On Telecom Towers
Case Title : COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEAL 1, DELHI ETC. Versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED ETC.
Case Number : DIARY NO(S). 10915/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 280
The Supreme Court on 19 August dismissed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department's review petition against Bharti Airtel Ltd, Indus Towers Ltd and Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, upholding the earlier dismissal of the Department's challenge to the Delhi High Court ruling on input tax credit (ITC) for telecom towers. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 8 August 2025, by which it had dismissed the Department's special leave petition against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 12 December 2024.
Supreme Court Says Extended GST Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Mechanically, Quashes G.R. Infra Notice
Case Title : M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 281
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be invoked merely by mechanically using expressions such as “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression of facts” in a show cause notice. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by G.R. Infra Projects Limited, Ratlam, observing that the show cause notice itself must specify the allegations and circumstances which led the assessing officer to infer fraud, concealment or suppression of facts.
Supreme Court Holds Port Trust Liable For Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods After Custodian Approval
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4477 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 283
The Supreme Court on 25 August upheld the validity of a notification approving the Mumbai Port Trust as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to approve a person or entity as custodian of imported goods pending their clearance. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan held that the Commissioner of Customs was justified in approving the Trust as a custodian, and set aside the Bombay High Court's finding that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the notification.
Supreme Court Sets Aside GST Notice Against Tata Steel, Says 'Suppression' Must Have Factual Basis
Case Title : M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16859 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 284
The Supreme Court has set aside a GST show cause notice issued to Tata Steel Limited and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 26 December 2025, holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), merely by using the words “suppression of facts” without setting out the foundational facts supporting the allegation. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that where the Department seeks to invoke the extended limitation period on the grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the show cause notice must itself disclose the facts forming the basis for such an allegation.
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 : Sanchit Seth v. Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise And 3 Others
Case Number : HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 861 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 55
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the arrest, remand and detention of a man taken into custody under the Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025, holding that the arrest could not be sustained when the written authorisation to arrest him was issued by the Commissioner only a day after he had been picked up. The HSNS Cess Act imposes a monthly cess on manufacturers of specified goods to fund national security and public health.
Allahabad High Court Seeks Centre's Response On GST Appellate Tribunal Vacancies In Uttar Pradesh
Case Title : S.S. Pharma v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2982 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 59
The Allahabad High Court has sought an affidavit from the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India detailing the efforts being made to fill vacancies in the GST Appellate Tribunal benches in Uttar Pradesh. In a petition filed by S.S. Pharma, the issue of GST appellate tribunals not sitting was brought before the High Court. Justice Piyush Agrawal had directed the state counsels to seek instructions on the appointments, sittings, and disposal of cases by the Appellate Tribunal.
CESTAT Must Issue Fresh Notice If Bench Does Not Sit On Fixed Hearing Date: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Sampark Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 64
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where no bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal sits on the date fixed for hearing so that no judicial order comes to be passed fixing the next date, the Tribunal must issue a fresh notice to the party intimating the next date and place of hearing. It held that an appeal decided ex parte on such an unnotified date is decided without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Nageen Traders and Molding India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Abdul Rahim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Dept. Govt. Lko. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 989 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 66
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a taxpayer who appeared before the tax officer and contested a show cause notice on merits and raised the objection of want of jurisdiction only after the penalty order went against him is hit by the doctrine of election and ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “We are conscious of the settled legal position that a question of jurisdiction can be raised before a Constitutional Court at any stage. However, the writ jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised by this Court in a judicious manner.”
GST Authority Finding In Assessment Proceedings May Affect Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Javed Akhtar v. Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15340 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 67
The Allahabad High Court on 11 August held that where assessment proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 end in a finding that a taxpayer has not violated the law, such finding may have a bearing on criminal prosecution arising from the same allegations, even though the two proceedings are independent. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan made the observation while granting bail to Javed Akhtar, who was accused of fraudulently availing input tax credit, noting that no proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act had been initiated against him.
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
AP High Court Sets Aside VAT Orders On ISRO's Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Flags National Interest
Case Title : Satish Dhawan Space Centre Shar v. The State of AP
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 6971/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 44
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 22 June set aside VAT assessment orders passed against Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, a unit of the Indian Space Research Organisation, holding that an improper tax burden on an institution engaged in critical space programmes could adversely affect national interest. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T. C. D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment orders, and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the Space Centre.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Detention Over Expired E-Way Bill After Vehicle Breakdown
Case Title : Slv Elite Spaces Llp and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 10030 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 46
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 16 July held that GST authorities cannot invoke detention proceedings merely because an e-way bill had expired when the delay in delivery of goods was caused by a vehicle breakdown and there was no evidence of tax evasion. A Division Bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar allowed the writ petition filed by SLV Elite Spaces LLP and directed the GST authorities to drop further proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the GST Act (which provides for detention, seizure, and release of goods and vehicles in certain cases).
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 : Neon Laboratories v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, PAL-VAT-E-005, Palghar & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 21301 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 390
The Bombay High Court has directed the Sub-Registrar to register an auction purchaser's sale certificate without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Sales Tax Department after finding that the secured creditor's claim took priority over the Department's tax dues. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat granted the relief to Neon Laboratories, which had purchased the property in an auction conducted by a bank under the SARFAESI Act.
Natural Justice Can't Be 'Sheet Anchor' To Bypass GST Appeal Remedy: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Mahapuja Ltd. Through Its Director Keyur Jaswant Shah v. The Office of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central Through Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 15871 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 435
The Bombay High court has ruled that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the GST law and directly invoke writ jurisdiction merely by alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice. Holding that such pleas must be supported by specific facts, the court observed, "Taking refuge under natural justice in every case, as a sheet anchor would not justify filing of a Writ Petition under Art. 226, sans justification in the manner the law mandates. This more particularly where statute clearly provides for orders that are appealable. In such situations, it thus becomes incumbent upon the Court to separate the 'grain from the chaff' and judiciously exercise discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, in an exceptional case, under compelling circumstances."
Stamp Duty Cannot Be Levied On Final Conveyance If Documents Form One Transaction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 13655 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 468
The Bombay High Court on 20 August held that where several agreements and a subsequent conveyance form part of one continuous property transaction, stamp authorities cannot treat the final conveyance as a fresh transaction and levy stamp duty again merely because the documents bear different names. Justice Amit Borkar quashed the demand of Rs. 2.60 crore raised against Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited towards alleged deficit stamp duty, along with the consequential penalty and other charges.
Future Revenue Share Can Be Consideration For Stamp Duty On Development Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Star Developers Through Partners v. State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Revenue & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11127 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 476
The Bombay High Court on 24 August held that a landowner's agreed share in future sale proceeds can be treated as consideration for determining stamp duty on a development agreement, even if the exact amount is not known when the agreement is executed. Justice Amit Borkar dismissed Star Developers' petition challenging the demand for deficit stamp duty, holding that the 42% revenue share agreed to be paid to the landowner could be considered while determining the market value of the transaction under Section 2(na) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
Case Title : M/s Sahyog Homes Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 6437 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 477
On Friday, 28 August, a Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 must be completed within six years, or whether it is sufficient for the proceedings to be initiated within that period. Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Sahyog Homes Ltd. and another, challenging an order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority directing them to pay Rs. 2.31 crore towards deficit stamp duty.
Case Title : IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 38052 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 478
On 28 August, the Bombay High Court held that a taxpayer cannot be denied refund of the GST pre-deposit corresponding to a tax demand that has already been set aside, merely because it intends to challenge the remaining demand before the GST Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed IBM India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition challenging the rejection of its claim for refund of Rs. 3.14 crore.
Different Financial Years Cannot Be Clubbed In One Section 73 Show Cause Notice: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Mehadia & Sons C & F Division v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-II & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 484
The Bombay High Court on 28 August reiterated that demands for different financial years cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). A Division Bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the statutory scheme treats each financial year as a separate tax period for assessment and recovery, with separate due dates and limitation periods. It therefore held that different financial years cannot be consolidated into a single proceeding under Section 73.
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
Case Title : M/s. Popat and Kotecha Property and Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Case Number : WPO 3068 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 163
The Calcutta High Court on 15 June held that municipal authorities cannot enhance property tax liability through undisclosed administrative policies lacking statutory backing, and set aside the enhancement of annual valuation imposed on Popat and Kotecha Property along with consequential tax demands. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that fiscal measures must rest on clear statutory authority and cannot be justified through internal administrative arrangements.
Customs Appeals Cannot Face Maintainability Challenge At Pre-Admission Stage: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Port v. M/s Greenpanel Industries Limited
Case Number : CUSTA 88 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 170
The Calcutta High Court on 10 July held that parties in customs appeals cannot challenge the maintainability of such appeals at the pre-admission stage, and must raise objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability only after the Court determines whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar rejected the respondents' request for a preliminary hearing on maintainability while hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Order Uploaded A Day After Limitation Expired
Case Title : M. M. Motors & Anr. v. The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 8929 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 177
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a GST adjudication order even though its summary was uploaded on the common portal a day after the limitation period expired. The court held that the statutory limitation applies to the issuance of the order and not to its subsequent service. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed a writ petition filed by M. M. Motors and another challenging an adjudication order for the 2018–19 tax period. The petitioners argued that the adjudication order could not be treated as having been validly issued within the limitation period because its summary in Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded only after the prescribed period had expired.
Case Title : M/s B. Enterprise & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 1078 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 181
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice due to improper service of notices on the GST portal. It observed that the show cause notice, reminder, and adjudication order were uploaded only in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST portal and not in the "Normal" tab. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that such uploading does not amount to valid communication under the GST law.
Calcutta HC Rejects ₹27.74 Cr CENVAT Demand, Says Revenue Cannot Choose Assessee's Compliance Method
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate Kolkata IV v. M/s Ganges Valley Foods Private Limited
Case Number : CEXA 6 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 195
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed the Revenue's appeals against a biscuit manufacturer in a Rs 27.74 crore CENVAT credit dispute involving the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted biscuits. It held that an assessee has the right to choose between the methods of compliance available under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar held that the Revenue cannot switch an assessee to a more punitive method merely because it disputes the calculation made under the method chosen by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Reassessment Against Chirania Projects, Orders Personal Hearing
Case Title : Chirania Projects Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 23325 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 202
The Calcutta High Court on 18 August upheld reassessment proceedings initiated against Chirania Projects Private Limited for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, while directing the Assessing Officer to provide the company an opportunity of personal hearing during the reassessment. Justice Smita Das De passed the order while hearing the company's writ petition challenging the 30 June 2025 order under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148.
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.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title : Riverdale World School v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Number : WPC No. 2390 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CHH) 21
The Chhattisgarh High Court on 31 July held that a municipal authority cannot reject a property tax exemption claim merely because a school did not submit its Section 12AA registration certificate under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (which grants tax exemption to charitable institutions) along with its initial self assessment or representation. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu disposed of the writ petition filed by Riverdale World School, which challenged a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs. 30,808 towards property tax for the financial year 2020 to 2021.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Amit Ranjan & Ors. v. Union Of India And Others
Case Number : LPA 393/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 677
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the taxation of Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) under the Finance Act, 2022 does not make cryptocurrency exchanges "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution or, by itself, subject them to public law scrutiny. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia thus dismissed an appeal filed by users of cryptocurrency exchange platform BitBNS, seeking CBI or SIT probe into the alleged withdrawal restrictions.
Case Title : Navalai Enterprises v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case Number : CUSAA 14/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 685
The Delhi High Court has held that an Authorised Courier whose licence has been revoked under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010 can maintain a statutory appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, even after availing the remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner under the Regulations. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside a CESTAT order that had dismissed the courier's appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the 2010 Regulations provided only a remedy of representation before the Chief Commissioner.
Delhi High Court Refuses Higher Interest On Service Tax Refund Beyond Statutory 6% Rate
Case Title : Seher v. Commissioner Of Central Excise & Cgst, Delhi East
Case Number : SERTA 21/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 686
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of interest from 6% to 12% per annum on the refund of a service tax deposit made during investigation, holding that once the statute prescribes the rate of interest payable, courts cannot award a higher rate in the absence of any challenge to the statutory provision or the notification issued thereunder. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain upheld a CESTAT order granting interest at 6% per annum under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Notification No. 24/2014-C.E. (N.T.).
GST Order Need Not Elaborately Deal With Every Submission In Taxpayer's Reply: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sunil Chauhan Prop Of Shree Chem India v. The Principal Commisisoner Of Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8412/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 690
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a GST adjudicating authority does not elaborately deal with every submission made by an assessee in reply to a show cause notice (SCN), the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the representation was not considered. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that while Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 obligates the proper officer to consider the noticee's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, the adequacy of reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority and the correctness of its findings are matters that ordinarily fall within the domain of the appellate authority.
Case Title : Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9189/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 698
The Delhi High Court has held that an appellate order setting aside the rejection of a GST refund claim does not automatically entitle the assessee to an unconditional refund, nor does it bar tax authorities from examining the claim afresh on other legally permissible grounds. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by M/s Karamsar Poultry Appliances, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹3.44 lakh, which it claimed arose from an appellate order passed in its favour.
Case Title : Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 703
The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not obliged to call for additional documents or clarifications from a business merely because it finds the material placed on record to be insufficient to determine tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by Sodexo India, challenging a GST demand of around ₹8.75 crore. The Court rejected Sodexo's contention that the adjudicating authority ought to have sought further documents before passing the impugned order under Section 74 of the GST Act.
Case Title : Abdul Samad v. Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9182/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 706
The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of gold brought into India from Dubai without declaration, observing that the petitioner's experience as an international traveller showed that he was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, which had held that the petitioner attempted to import substantial quantities of gold jewellery and biscuits without making the mandatory declaration.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Examine GST Liability On Diagnostic Services, Directs Petitioner To AAR
Case Title : Hemogenomics Private Limited v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1973/2026 and W.P.(C) 4302/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 720
The Delhi High Court has recently refused to examine a challenge to the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on diagnostic services rendered by a private lab, observing that the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) under the GST Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan disposed of two writ petitions filed by a company after being informed that the vacancy in the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling had been filled, thereby restoring the quorum required for adjudication.
Mandatory 7.5% Customs Appeal Pre-Deposit Cannot Be Waived Or Reduced: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs And Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9384/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 741
The Delhi High Court has recently held that the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be waived or reduced, as the Act contains no provision permitting such reduction. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain passed the order while disposing of four writ petitions filed by importers challenging orders passed by the customs authorities and seeking waiver or reduction of the mandatory pre-deposit for maintaining their appeals before the CESTAT.
Delhi High Court Asks VAT Officer To Decide Voltas' ₹1.79 Crore Refund Claim Within Two Weeks
Case Title : Voltas Limited v. Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10085/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 743
The Delhi High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Voltas Limited seeking a VAT refund of ₹1.79 crore pertaining to the first quarter of the financial year 2017-18, after the Delhi government assured the Court that the company's representation would be decided within two weeks. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing Voltas' plea seeking a direction to the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes to refund ₹1,79,07,807.
CGST Act Has No Provision To Exempt Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Appeal: Delhi High Court
Case Title : DS Farbication v. The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Others
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9962/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 744
The Delhi High Court has recently held that there is no provision under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, to exempt an assessee from the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing a statutory appeal. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus declined to entertain a trader's writ petition challenging cancellation of a GST registration. According to the petitioner, its GST registration had been cancelled on the allegation that the firm was non-existent and had wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to ₹49,89,902. Before passing the impugned order, the authorities had issued a show cause notice, but no reply was submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing.
Delhi High Court Declines Writ Against Ex Parte GST Order, Cites Statutory Appeal
Case Title : SKG Metal Trading Through Its Partner v. The Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3895/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 755
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an ex parte GST adjudication order. It observed that disputed questions of fact relating to the validity and sufficiency of service of notices under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are more appropriately examined by the statutory appellate authority. A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan was hearing a challenge to an order that imposed a penalty of over ₹2.39 crore on the petitioner for the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.
Case Title : DK Enterprises Through Proprietor, Deepak Mittal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10993/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 756
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is empowered to conduct such further inquiry as may be necessary while deciding an appeal and, in an appropriate case, can permit cross-examination of witnesses, notwithstanding the statutory bar on remanding matters to the adjudicating authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while refusing to entertain a writ petition challenging GST demand of approximately ₹64 crore on the ground that Petitioner had been denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the adjudication proceedings.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Central Tax, Cgst Delhi East v. Samiah International Builder Pvt. Ltd
Case Number : CEAC 5/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 760
The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal against a CESTAT order determining the taxability of a particular service is not maintainable before the High Court and must instead be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain relied on Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd., SERTA 2/2024 to conclude, “where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a particular service, an appeal against such determination would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”, the court ruled.
Case Title : Safelogic Freight Agency LLC v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19725/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 765
The Delhi High Court recently observed that a dispute between the Customs Department and the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) over the release of a shipping container appeared to be "driven more on account of ego than on any question of law," after the container remained stranded for more than three years. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while hearing a plea filed by Ukraine-based freight forwarding company, seeking release of its container lying at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad.
Case Title : Lalitendra Gulani v. Director General, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 766
The Delhi High Court has observed that advocates should be summoned only in "rare and exceptional circumstances" after disposing of a plea challenging a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) summons issued to a lawyer who had rendered a legal opinion to a client. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan disposed of the petition after recording the DRI's submission that the impugned summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had already been withdrawn.
New 10% GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Not Applicable If SCN Issued Before October 1, 2025: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-Ii) Cgst Delhi Zone & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8414/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 770
The Delhi High Court has held that the amended provision requiring a 10% pre-deposit of the penalty for filing appeals against penalty-only orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied to adjudicatory proceedings that were initiated before the amendment came into force on October 1, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the petitioners' right to appeal vested when the show cause notice (SCN) was issued on June 25, 2025, and therefore the subsequent amendment introducing the 10% pre-deposit requirement could not be imposed on them.
Delhi High Court Dismisses 19-Year-Old Sales Tax Reference On Video Cassettes For Non-Prosecution
Case Title : Casette Shoppe v. Commissioner Of Sales Tax Delhi
Case Number : ST.REF. 1/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 775
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a 19-year-old sales tax reference concerning the tax classification of video cassettes for non-prosecution. A division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain had earlier observed that with the advancement of technology, the issue may have become purely academic. On Friday, the court dismissed the reference after observing that no one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner-Casette Shoppe for several hearings.
Case Title : Ministry Of Railways v. The Assessing Azuthoirity & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13676/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 776
The Delhi High Court has recently reserved judgment in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Ministry of Railways challenging sales tax demands in relation to transactions involving the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC), nearly 20 years after the petitions were instituted in 2006. The division bench of Justices Anil Khetrapal and Shail Jain reserved judgment and asked the parties to file synopses, not exceeding five pages each, within three working days. The writ petitions were filed in 2006, challenging assessment orders dated March 30, 2006 that raised sales tax demands.
Case Title : Armour Security India Limited v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10738/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 783
The Delhi High Court has held that the GST Appellate Authority is competent to decide what constitutes a "reasonable period" for issuance of a show cause notice under Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain thus refused to entertain a writ petition in this regard, by bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. The petition was filed by a security services company, challenging a show cause notice dated September 30, 2025 and the consequential demand order dated March 30, 2026.
Passenger Carrying Undeclared Gold Has No Entitlement to Seek Its Re-Export: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Oguljeren Derchiyeva v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6948/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 784
The Delhi High Court has held that passengers who cross the Green Channel without declaring dutiable or prohibited goods cannot later seek re-export of the confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. For context, Section 125 empowers the adjudicating authority to grant an option to redeem confiscated goods upon payment of a redemption fine. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the provision is not an “entitlement” to re-export the goods.
Delhi High Court To Examine CAAR's Power To Void Customs Advance Rulings
Case Title : Le Mei Plastic Manufacturing Private Limited v. The Customs Authority For Advance Rulings, Delhi & Anr.
Case Number : CUSAA 80/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 787
The Delhi High Court has admitted an appeal that will examine when the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) can declare an advance ruling void from the outset on the ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation of material facts. The appeal arises from the CAAR's exercise of its powers under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962, to declare the appellant's August 6, 2025, advance ruling void ab initio. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by a plastic manufacturing company challenging an order of the CAAR declaring its earlier advance ruling dated August 6, 2025 void ab initio under Section 28K of the Customs Act on the ground that it had allegedly been obtained by misrepresentation of material facts.
Delhi High Court Allows Exporter To Approach GST Authorities For Interest On Refund
Case Title : Recyclib Private Limited v. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6519/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 788
The Delhi High Court has permitted an exporter to approach the GST authorities for payment of interest on an allegedly delayed refund under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a petition filed by a lithium-ion battery recycler, which is engaged in the export of unwrought cobalt powder used in scrap batteries. Petitioner submitted that it had applied on January 22, 2022, for refund of ₹31.44 lakh towards tax paid on export of goods. The refund application was rejected on April 22, 2024. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the Petitioner's appeal on January 6, 2026 and set aside the refund rejection order. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a fresh application on March 27, 2026, pursuant to which the refund amount was released.
Plea In Delhi High Court Challenges GST Demand Notices Based On Uncorrected Return
Case Title : Smec International Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Ct Gst, Delhi East & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6176/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 789
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging GST demand notices allegedly issued on the basis of an uncorrected return, despite the petitioner's claim that revised returns had been considered during audit proceedings. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by an engineering design consultant company. Senior Advocate Puneet Agrawal for the Petitioner-company submitted that while filing its GST return for the financial year 2014–15, a clerical error had occurred, which could not be rectified within the prescribed 90-day period. It was submitted that the Petitioner subsequently sought correction of the error, and during audit proceedings, the revised returns were taken into consideration.
Delhi High Court Quashes GST Cancellation Notice Lacking Proper Officer Details Office Address
Case Title : Prashant Shanker v. Superintendent, Range-125, CGST Delhi West
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11075/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 794
The Delhi High Court on 5 August held that a show cause notice issued for cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration must clearly mention the office address and the details of the proper officer before whom the taxpayer is required to appear. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain set aside the cancellation of Prashant Shanker's GST registration and the rejection of his application seeking revocation, holding that the orders were passed without granting him an effective opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Goel Metal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10996/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 793
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the provisional release of goods seized during search proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain observed that a petitioner questioning the validity of a statutory provision must establish that it infringes a constitutional mandate. Petitioner had contended that the expression "on a provisional basis" in Section 67(6) should not apply where the taxpayer has already discharged the tax, interest, and penalty under Section 74A(9). It also challenged Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and sought quashing of a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalty proceedings.
Interest On Duty Drawback Payable From LEO Date Not Adjudication Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi v. M/s Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CUSAA 79/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 795
The Delhi High Court on 3 August held that interest on delayed duty drawback becomes payable one month after issuance of the Let Export Order (LEO), and the pendency of adjudication proceedings cannot postpone the statutory liability under Section 75A of the Customs Act (which provides for payment of interest on delayed drawback). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Siddhachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., holding that the exporter was entitled to interest on the duty drawback amount of Rs. 49.75 lakh from 13 April 2003 until the date of actual payment.
Case Title : Holitech India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8397/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 797
The Delhi High Court on 4 August held that the period during which the Interim Board for Settlement remained unable to function due to lack of quorum must be excluded while calculating the statutory limitation period for deciding customs settlement applications. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain set aside the communications issued by the Interim Board treating the Petitioner's settlement proceedings as having abated under Section 127C(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that a litigant cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy of settlement due to the adjudicatory authority's institutional incapacity.
Case Title : Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3874/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 798
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand on the ground that it was based on inadmissible third-party electronic evidence, holding that questions relating to the admissibility, authenticity, and evidentiary value of electronic records are matters to be examined by the statutory appellate authority and not in writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act confirming demands exceeding ₹1.5 crore along with interest and penalty.
Delhi High Court Accepts Customs Apology For Failing To Video-Record Statement In Gold Seizure Case
Case Title : Pulkit Nanda v. Vishal Pal Singh, Commissioner Of Customs & Ors
Case Number : CONT.CAS(C) 239/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 801
The Delhi High Court recently accepted the Customs Department's unconditional apology for failing to video-record the statement of a man whose 403-gram gold chain was seized at Delhi airport. Justice Mini Pushkarna, however, cautioned that the Department was expected to be aware of and scrupulously comply with judicial directions. The bench observed that the Customs Department, having a robust law department, could not justify the lapse by claiming that the concerned officer was unaware of the court's directions.
Case Title : Zubair Enterprises v. Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18468/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 802
The Delhi High Court has directed all banks and financial institutions to de-freeze bank accounts provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), upon the expiry of one year from the date of attachment, unless a fresh attachment order is issued in accordance with law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain also directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue a circular to all scheduled banks and financial institutions to ensure uniform compliance with Section 83(2) of the CGST Act and prevent unnecessary harassment of assessees.
Case Title : A V International & Anr. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16149/2023 and W.P.(C) 5024/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 811
The Delhi High Court has held that two show cause notices issued pursuant to the same investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) retain their separate legal identity and can be adjudicated independently, even where they have been assigned to the same adjudicating authority and taken up together for hearing. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the mere fact that two SCNs emanate from the same investigation, or that they are entrusted to a common adjudicating authority and heard together for administrative convenience, does not convert them into a single composite proceeding.
Delhi High Court Rejects Challenge To CGST Proceedings As SGST Notices Came Later
Case Title : Shub Conductors LLP & Ors. v. Joint Commissioner Central Tax GST Delhi East Delhi & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4126/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 812
The Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge to Central GST proceedings after finding that the corresponding State GST notices were issued later. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the ruling while dealing with a writ petition filed by a partnership firm challenging CGST proceedings as being barred under Section 6(2)(b). The provision provides that where a proper officer under the State GST law has initiated proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter.
Case Title : Bhagwati Electronics & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2179/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 813
The Delhi High Court has held that questions concerning the admissibility, authentication and evidentiary value of electronic data and handwritten 'kachcha parchis' relied upon in a GST case should be raised before the statutory appellate authority rather than examined in writ proceedings. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act against several entities allegedly linked to an investigation into M/s Arora Communication.
Case Title : KANWAL CHAUDHARY vs INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OFINDIA & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9410/2021
The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that advocates rendering services as insolvency professionals must obtain GST registration, ruling that such services are subject to the forward charge mechanism and not the reverse charge mechanism applicable to legal services provided by advocates. A bench of Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the judgment on a petition filed by advocate Kanwal Chaudhary challenging an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) order dated March 9, 2021.
Case Title : Delhi International Airport Ltd v Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4683/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 821
The Delhi High Court has disposed of two connected writ petitions, including one filed by Delhi International Airport Ltd, challenging the denial of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted it liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of its claim in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax v M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Based On Show Cause Notice Uploaded Only On GST Portal
Case Title : Sai Overseas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 19692/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 822
The Delhi High Court recently set aside an ex-parte order passed against a taxpayer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, noting that the show cause notice had been uploaded only on the GST portal. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication in terms of the directions passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.
Case Title : Bhavpreet Plasto Chem India v. The Superintendent, Range-41 CGST, North Delhi Division-Bawana
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11294/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 823
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a firm's GST registration, noting that the assessee had failed to respond to show cause notices issued to it. Petitioner had approached the Court challenging the order cancelling its GST registration, the subsequent order rejecting its application for revocation of cancellation, and the appellate order passed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The GST registration was cancelled after the firm was found to be non-existent and non-functional during an inspection.
Case Title : Arun Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West Commissionerate & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2704/202 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 827
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to examine the question of whether a person who is not a “taxable person” can be penalised under Section 122(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, noting that the issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain disposed of twelve connected petitions filed by directors and other individuals against penalties imposed under Sections 74, 76(2) and 122(1) of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Senior India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & Connected Matters
Case Number : CUSAA 18/2026 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 828
The Delhi High Court recently granted limitation relief to an importer whose customs refund remedy became ineffective following the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. The top court in the case had held that a refund claim could not be entertained unless the underlying assessment or self-assessment had first been modified in appeal or under another provision of the Customs Act. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the time spent by the importer in pursuing the refund remedy could not be treated as ordinary inaction, particularly as the refund claim had been filed under the binding legal position prevailing at the relevant time.
Case Title : Saraswati Printers v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II/AVATO, State Tax Ward 91, Zone 8 Delhi & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10640/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 829
The Delhi High Court has allowed a GST assessee who participated in the show cause notice proceedings to file a statutory appeal against a subsequent demand order within four weeks after finding that the order had been served only by uploading it on the Common Portal. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that while the assessee could not seek restoration of the proceedings to the stage of issuance of the show cause notice since it had filed a reply and participated in the adjudication proceedings, it would be entitled to file a statutory appeal against the demand order within four weeks without any objection on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16562/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 830
The Delhi High Court has held that the transfer of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing is essentially an administrative exercise. It further held that in the absence of any statutory prohibition under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against such transfer, the transfer by itself cannot be a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was dealing with a petition filed by M/s Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. challenging the transfer of its GST audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
Case Title : Vyome Therapeutics Limited v. The Commissioner of CGST (East) Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9141/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 831
The Delhi High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction to examine a dispute regarding the starting point for computation of limitation period under Section 74(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that it was “debatable” as to which limb of Section 74(10) would apply in the facts of the case and relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal.
Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Using Another Broker's Credentials
Case Title : Goodwings Maritime Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSAA 67/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 837
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that it had consciously undertaken clearance-related activities using the credentials of another Customs Broker in relation to goods which were prohibited for import. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the consent or knowledge of the Customs Broker whose credentials were used could not authorise another broker to undertake Customs Broker functions using those credentials.
Case Title : Liberty General Insurance Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4526/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 838
The Delhi High Court has recently held that Central and State GST proceedings cannot be treated as being on the 'same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because both proceedings concern Input Tax Credit for the same financial year. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain said that determining whether proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities concern the same subject matter requires an examination of the nature and scope of the respective proceedings, the period involved, the allegations, transactions or ITC under scrutiny, liability sought to be determined and the material relied upon.
Delhi High Court To Decide Constitutional Validity Of Cess On Pan Masala Manufacturers
Case Title : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 80/2024 and W.P.(C) 364/2024
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the levy of compensation cess on pan masala manufacturers under the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain has listed for final disposal two petitions filed by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and the Smokeless Tobacco Association challenging the levy of compensation cess on pan masala and its constitutional validity.
Case Title : Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) and connected matters
Case Number : CUSAA 89/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 847
The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant cannot seek condonation of an inordinate delay by merely blaming their counsel for failing to communicate an order, especially when the litigant themselves remained inactive and made no enquiry about the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed three customs appeals challenging CESTAT 's refusal to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals against recovery and penalty order.
Case Title : Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings & Anr
Case Number : CUSAA 43/2023 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 850
The Delhi High Court has held that the return of petroleum operations equipment from a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) pursuant to a fresh contract and a subsequent Essentiality Certificate (EC) constitutes a fresh import and not a re-import. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that merely because the equipment was physically the same as that which had earlier been imported into India, it could not be treated as a re-import.
Delhi High Court Declines Common Adjudication Of Three Customs SCNs Despite Overlapping Evidence
Case Title : Zenlayer Networks India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7091/2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
The Delhi High Court has refused to order common adjudication of three show cause notices arising out of a single Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation, holding that although there was substantial overlap in the material relied upon by the Department, the notices had distinct subject matters and arose at different stages of the alleged transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain also declined to entertain challenges to the customs adjudication orders in writ jurisdiction, leaving the Petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Icd, Tkd, New Delhi and connected matters
Case no.: CUSAA 82/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that an importer, being the ultimate beneficiary of duty benefits, has the responsibility to verify the genuineness of duty credit scrips used for customs clearance. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that an importer cannot escape liability for forged or manipulated scrips by shifting the blame to its agent. The Court was dealing with a batch of six customs appeals and 41 writ petitions arising from an investigation into large-scale customs duty evasion through forged and manipulated duty credit scrips used by importers of paper and paper articles between 2011 and 2015.
Pending GST Fraud Case No Ground To Restrict Passport Renewal To Three Years: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Atul Modi v. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence
CITATION : 2026 llbIZ HC (DEL) 860
The Delhi High Court on 20 August held that the pendency of a criminal case concerning alleged Goods and Services Tax fraud cannot justify restricting an accused person's passport renewal to three years when sufficient safeguards prevent him from leaving India without the Court's permission. Justice Saurabh Banerjee modified the trial court's order limiting Atul Modi's passport renewal to three years and directed that his passport be renewed for the regular term of ten years.
Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Fake GST Case Involving Misuse Of PAN Cards
Case Title : Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number : BAIL APPLN. 1632/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 862
The Delhi High Court on 20 August dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of creating fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) entities by allegedly misusing the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) cards and other credentials of unsuspecting individuals. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that filing fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns by misusing the PANs and other credentials of innocent persons has serious consequences for victims and “tremendous ramifications” for the country's economy.
Lending Customs Broker Licence And Dongle For Money Prohibited Under CBLR: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pardeep Kumar Prashar v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)
Case Number : CUSAA 75/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 865
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a Customs Broker cannot lend his licence and dongle to another person for monetary consideration, as such conduct amounts to impermissible transfer of the licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain upheld the revocation of the appellant, Pardeep Kumar Prashar's Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of his security deposit of Rs. 75,000 and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
Judicial Review Cannot Re-Appreciate Settlement Commission Evidence: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8723/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 866
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that while exercising judicial review over orders of the Settlement Commission, it cannot re-appreciate evidence considered by the Commission or substitute its own assessment for that of the Commission. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. challenging the rejection of a claim for adjustment of Rs. 31.93 lakh towards reversal of CENVAT credit against Central Excise duty liability.
Case Title : M/s Nitco Ltd. and Anr. v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission
Case Number : W.P.(C) 976/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 867
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a taxpayer who voluntarily chooses to settle a dispute before the Settlement Commission cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the underlying show cause notice (SCN) through a writ petition. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nitco Ltd. challenging an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission.
Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Employee Over Undeposited TDS
Case Title : Shravan Rustagi v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16067/2025 & CM APPL. 65785/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 884
The Delhi High Court on 21 August quashed a tax demand raised against a taxpayer after finding that his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted from his salary. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the petition and directed the Revenue to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months. The dispute arose from an intimation dated 23 September 2025 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12.
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
Gauhati High Court Rejects Hawkins Cookers' Plea To Compute VAT On Reduced Sale Price
Case Title : Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number : Revn.Pet./1/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 21
The Gauhati High Court has held that Hawkins Cookers Ltd. must pay the balance 8.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on the original sale price of pressure cookers after an earlier ruling held that the products attracted VAT at 12.5% before 2010 and not 4% as claimed by the company. Dismissing six revision petitions, the court rejected Hawkins' contention that the original sale consideration should be treated as inclusive of 12.5% VAT while computing the additional tax liability. The controversy was confined to the manner of computing the differential VAT after an earlier ruling had already settled that pressure cookers attracted VAT at 12.5% prior to 2010.
GST Seller's Failure To File Returns Cannot Deny ITC To Bona Fide Purchaser: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/4312/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 22
The Gauhati High Court on 16 July held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to file GST returns after collecting tax from the purchaser, and that the department must proceed against the defaulting seller. Justice Devashis Baruah allowed a writ petition by Advance Engineering Farms and Equipments challenging the rejection of ITC on generators bought in FY 2017-18, holding that treating the claim as excess ITC went against the Division Bench ruling in National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam.
Gauhati High Court Says How GST Proceedings Are to Be Initiated Can't Be Decided in Writ Petition
Case Title : Gias Uddin Ahmed & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/2540/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 25
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to decide whether GST proceedings should be initiated under the normal recovery provisions or the fraud-related provisions of the CGST Act, as that issue requires factual adjudication by the proper officer. Single Judge Justice Devashis Baruah observed that whether a taxpayer committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax can only be determined after examining the facts and, therefore, cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
GST Officers Cannot Keep Tax Consultant's Office Sealed After Search Ends: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Sri Surendra Sharma v. The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/3035/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 27
The Gauhati High Court on 10 August held that GST authorities cannot keep business premises sealed after completing a search when the owner had not denied them access. Justice Devashis Baruah directed the Assam GST Department to de-seal the office of Sri Surendra Sharma, a tax consultant operating under the name Sharma and Associates in Bokajan, Assam. The Bench held: “...the goods mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of Prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 can under no circumstances be said to be goods liable for confiscation as the things mentioned therein are laptops, desktops, 426 files, Refrigerators, Air conditioners, Inverter, Batteries etc which are not liable for confiscation under Section 120 of the Act of 2017 in the facts of the present case.”
Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Director, DRI v. The State of Nagaland
Case Number : Crl. Pet./18/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 28
The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had directed release of 570 bags of seized areca nuts on a Rs. 10 lakh bond and surety.
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
Taxpayer Cannot Claim Refund After Transitioning VAT Input Tax Credit To GST: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Dilip Babubhai Patel, Proprietor of M/s Shree Umiya Timbers v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21685 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)83
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a taxpayer who chooses to carry forward accumulated VAT input tax credit into the GST regime cannot later seek a cash refund of the same credit. Upholding the rejection of a refund claim of ₹18.75 lakh, the court observed that while transitional credit can be used to discharge output tax liability, it cannot be refunded once it has been carried forward into the GST regime. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati partly allowed a petition filed by Dilip Babubhai Patel, proprietor of Shree Umiya Timbers.
Belated Allegation Of Coercion Cannot Justify GST Refund After Voluntary Payment: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhalava v. Office of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8399 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)85
The Gujarat High Court on 25 June held that a taxpayer cannot claim a refund of GST, interest and penalty voluntarily paid during search proceedings by alleging coercion nearly two years later, ruling that the belated allegation was merely an afterthought to secure a refund and that the delayed issuance of Form GST DRC-04 acknowledging the voluntary payment did not invalidate the proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by the proprietor of Alpha-1 Tuition Classes and Hostel challenging the rejection of his refund claim of Rs. 1.96 crore under Section 54 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Gujarat HC Holds PLA Payment Cannot Result In Double Recovery, Directs ₹3.74 Cr. Credit Restoration
Case Title : Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India Through Secretary & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1996 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)86
The Gujarat High Court on 24 June held that the Central Excise Department cannot require a taxpayer to claim a cash refund after the taxpayer has already deposited the disputed duty amount through the Personal Ledger Account (PLA), as the corresponding CENVAT credit must be restored to prevent double recovery. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed the writ petition filed by Inductotherm India Pvt. Ltd. and directed the Department to re-credit Rs. 3,74,33,462 to the company's electronic credit ledger within six weeks, observing that the Department had wrongly treated the request as one seeking suo motu re-credit when the company was only seeking restoration of credit after depositing the equivalent amount in cash.
Case Title : Jindal Saw Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 735 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)91
The Gujarat High Court on 15 July quashed a Rs. 41.53 crore central excise recovery notice issued to Jindal Saw Ltd., holding that the Commissioner of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to question eligibility certificates issued by the High Powered Committee under the exemption notification. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining such certificates could only be examined by the statutory committee that had issued them and set aside the show cause notice dated 17 September 2008.
Case Title : Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 4373 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)92
The Gujarat High Court on 2 July held that GST authorities cannot deny interest on refunds by treating a refund application filed pursuant to a Court order as a fresh application, ruling that where the original rejection of a refund claim is set aside as illegal, interest under Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act (which provides for interest on delayed refunds) must be calculated from the date of the original refund application. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a batch of writ petitions led by Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. and set aside orders denying interest on GST refunds. It observed: “The respondent authority was required to consider the date of initial refund application filed by the petitioner for calculating the interest instead of the subsequent application, which was filed after the order passed by this Court.”
Case Title : LANXESS Belgium N.V. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8794 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)95
The Gujarat High Court on 7 July held that disputes concerning the methodology used by the Designated Authority to determine dumping and injury margins in anti-dumping proceedings must be raised before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Belgian exporter LANXESS Belgium N.V. challenging the Designated Authority's final findings dated 20 March 2026 and the consequential notification imposing anti-dumping duty.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Rule Requiring Agricultural Science Degree For Agricultural Land Valuers
Case Title : Ketan Natvarlal Brahmbhatt v. Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 2167 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)98
The Gujarat High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of the requirement that applicants seeking registration as valuers of agricultural land must possess a degree in Agricultural Science. It held that the qualification bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved under Rule 8A of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, and does not violate Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
Case Title : Messers Shankar Packagings Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 17635 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)99
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside a CESTAT order remanding a customs classification dispute, questioning how the tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine CBEC circulars despite an earlier Gujarat High Court judgment requiring the Union of India to undertake that exercise. "We fail to understand how the Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, adopted the very same directions and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to re-look into the said Circulars, despite the fact that this Court had directed the Union of India itself to undertake such an exercise," a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati observed.
Retrospective Property Tax Demands Invalid Under GPMC Act: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : First Appeal Nos. 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759 and 761 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 107
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) could not retrospectively revise the rateable value of a property and demand property tax years after the relevant assessment period had ended, ruling that such demands were contrary to the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the Taxation Rules framed under it. "Having regard to the statutory provisions and rules thereunder, demand of taxes on the basis of revised rateable value with retrospective effect is invalid and no tax could be taxed to be levied or imposed. Thus, the appellant Corporation having no any jurisdiction and/or authority to raise a demand for a period from 2007-2008 to 2015-2016, in the year 2016," the court observed.
Case Title : State of Gujarat v. Western Agri Seeds Ltd.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 1889 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 108
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the State's plea against Western Agri Seeds Ltd., ruling that the state failed to prove the company's seeds were not used for sowing and were therefore outside the scope of the Value Added Tax exemption notification. "The petitioner Department has miserably failed to prove before us that the seeds which are procured by the respondents are not used for sowing purposes," the court observed while upholding the Gujarat VAT tribunal's decision to quash revisional proceedings that had revived a tax demand of ₹1.72 crore.
Case Title : Adinath Rice Mill & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14806 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 112
The Gujarat High Court has held that a taxpayer who filed a GST appeal before the January 31, 2024 cut-off cannot be denied the benefit of a special procedure introduced to allow appeals affected by limitation. The procedure permitted eligible taxpayers to file appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by January 31, 2024, subject to prescribed payment conditions. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati made the ruling while setting aside an appellate order that rejected a taxpayer's appeal solely on the ground of delay. The court also held that the appellate authority was required to consider the November 2, 2023 notification and could not wait for the taxpayer to specifically point out its provisions.
Case Title : Torrent Power Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected petitions
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 12175 of 2024 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 113
The Gujarat High Court has declared unconstitutional the levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished by one related company on behalf of another before October 26, 2023, holding that the retrospective levy violates fundamental rights. However, the court held that GST can be levied from that date where such corporate guarantees continue. While upholding the constitutionality of Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules read it down by removing the expression “whichever is higher” from the prescribed valuation mechanism.
Case Title : Gordhanbhai Virjibhai Roy v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7688 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 114
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a bus owner's plea against a ₹53.20 lakh vehicle tax demand, holding that the statutory presumption of use in Gujarat applied because he had not obtained a certificate declaring the bus as unused. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, creates a deeming fiction unless the prescribed authority certifies that a vehicle was not used or kept for use in the state.
Merely Because No Income Was Booked, Business Expenses Cannot Be Disallowed: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 115
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that expenses incurred on business projects cannot be disallowed merely because no income was booked against them for the relevant year. The court noted that if the Revenue's case was that no income had been booked, it had to determine whether the assessee had failed to account for that income or had not treated a particular receipt as income. “Merely because no income has been booked against the same, it would not result into disallowance of such expenses,” a division bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Orders Based On AI-Generated Non-Existent Case Laws
Case Title : Faiz Enterprise through Proprietor Mahetar Mahir Farukbhai v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 10123 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 117
The Gujarat High Court on 20 August quashed GST cancellation and appellate proceedings against Faiz Enterprise after finding that the State Tax Officer had relied exclusively on AI-generated case laws, including non-existent and irrelevant authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that adjudication proceedings cannot be sustained where an authority relies on unverified AI-generated case laws instead of independently applying its mind to the law.
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 : PSPCL v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 10539 of 2026
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Special Assessment) Amendment Rules, 2025, and consequential actions, including a demand of ₹16.324 crore raised on the Corporation. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma on Tuesday, while issuing notice to the State and other respondents, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner-Corporation pursuant to the impugned proceedings till the next date of hearing.
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
Case Title : Mohd Hazzak Lohar & Anr. v. Commissioner State Tax & Ors
Case Number : WP(C) No. 2434/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(J&K) 22
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High court has held that the seven-day timeline prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for passing a penalty order is mandatory. It ruled that a penalty order passed even a day beyond the statutory period cannot be sustained. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that where the legislature has used the word "shall" while prescribing timelines for the exercise of coercive powers, the requirement must be strictly complied with. It added that fiscal statutes must be be construed strictly.
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
GST Reimbursement Tied To Contractual Terms, Cannot Override Statutory Scheme: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The State of Karnataka v. Yogisha R
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1951 OF 2025 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 105
The Karnataka High Court on 25 June held that disputes concerning reimbursement of additional GST liability arise out of contractual arrangements between contractors and employers and cannot be used to alter or override the statutory framework governing GST levy, assessment and recovery. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. modified a Single Judge's order that had directed reimbursement of GST amounts to a contractor, which was passed relying on Sri Chandrashekaraiah and Others v. The State of Karnataka.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash DGGI Criminal Proceedings In Alleged Fake ITC Case
Case Title : Shri Mohammed Kamran v. The Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.38771 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 107
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Mysuru scrap dealer accused of allegedly fraudulently availing and passing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC). It rejected his contention that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) could not investigate the case because the State GST authorities had already initiated action. Justice M. Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate. The court observed that, after the complaint was received, the State GST authorities transferred their pending investigation to the Central GST authorities.
Case Title : Sri M R Kodandaram v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the application of a uniform property tax slab to Five-Star Hotels under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Property Tax Rules, ruling that such hotels constitute a distinct and uniform class irrespective of where they are located in Bengaluru. A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by M.R. Kodandaram, owner of Gokula Grand Hotel & Spa, challenging a Single Judge's refusal to interfere with a BBMP circular, demand notice, and the uniform property tax applicable to Five-Star Hotels.
No GST Payable On Machinery Returned For Testing Without Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : State of Karnataka v. AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1390 OF 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 111
The Karnataka High Court held on 25 June that a company does not incur GST liability when it returns machinery to a seller for testing without any fresh consideration, as the movement does not amount to a taxable supply. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order reducing the penalty imposed on AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.25,000, while directing the Department to refund the remaining amount deposited by the company.
Karnataka High Court Remands Quikr's ₹1.77 Crore Stamp Duty Dispute Over NCLT-Approved Amalgamation
Case Title : M/s Quikr India Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 15998 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 112
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order directing Quikr India Private Limited, which operates the online classifieds platform Quikr, to pay an additional ₹1.77 crore as stamp duty on a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-approved scheme of amalgamation. The matter has been remitted to the District Registrar for fresh consideration. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that, for the purpose of levying stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the NCLT's order approving the amalgamation is the relevant "instrument."
Case Title : M/s India Heritage Foundation v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 113
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a taxpayer cannot seek a lower VAT rate during reassessment proceedings without first filing a revised return under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, and dismissed India Heritage Foundation, Bengaluru's revision petition seeking to reduce the VAT rate on iron and steel used in a works contract from 12.5% to 4%. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K relied on its earlier decision in Nandi Constructions v. State of Karnataka and held that, since the Foundation had not filed a revised return under Section 35(4) of the KVAT Act (which permits a dealer to correct errors by filing a revised return), it could not raise the claim for a reduced VAT rate for the first time during reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 192 OF 2022 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 115
The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that a person who is neither the applicant nor the concerned tax authority in an advance ruling proceeding cannot challenge the ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such rulings are binding only on the parties to the proceeding. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind dismissed Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (BMRCL) writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), holding that BMRCL had no locus standi to question an advance ruling passed in proceedings to which it was not a party.
Case Title : M/s R.R. Gold Palace Private Limited & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number : STA No. 3 of 2023 c/w STA Nos. 11 of 2022, 12 of 2022, 2 of 2025, 5 of 2025 and 7 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax authorities cannot keep suo motu revision proceedings under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act pending indefinitely after initiating them within the statutory four-year period. While the authority validly initiates revision by calling for records within four years of the order proposed to be revised, the final revisional order must also be passed within a reasonable time, the court ruled.
Karnataka High Court Holds CESTAT Must Decide Limitation Plea Before Remanding Excise Matter
Case Title : Lotus Printers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Commissionerate
Case Number : CEA No. 17 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 120
The Karnataka High Court on 2 July held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) must decide a specifically pleaded limitation objection before remanding an excise dispute for adjudication on merits, as accepting the limitation plea could make further proceedings unnecessary. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. disposed of the appeal filed by Lotus Printers Private Limited and directed CESTAT to decide the limitation issue while keeping its remand order on merits intact.
Case Title : Sri C. Girish, M/s Jai Gurudev Road Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Zone-II), Bengaluru
Case Number : STA No. 7 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 121
The Karnataka High Court on 15 July held that surrender of a transit pass under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act does not conclusively establish genuine interstate movement of goods or prevent authorities from initiating penalty proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao dismissed an appeal filed by Sri C. Girish, proprietor of Jai Gurudev Road Carriers, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act (which provides for penalty where goods are transported in circumstances indicating possible tax evasion).
Case Title : Dhariwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 3157 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 127
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025, which imposed a machine-based cess on pan masala manufacturers, holding that while Parliament could impose such a levy, the manner in which it was levied violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the law levied the cess on the assumption of the quantity manufactured based on the capacity of pouch-packing machines instead of the quantity actually manufactured, which is unconstitutional.
GST Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation For Compulsory Land Acquisition: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Smt. P.S. Shamala v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 12641 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 129
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land, holding that such acquisition is not a "supply of goods or services" under the GST law. "An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is construed as goods. Therefore, there is neither supply of goods nor services, but an expropriation of the property of a citizen using statutory power. The petitioner has neither sold any goods nor provided any service in giving away his property. Therefore, even if a wide latitude is given to the words "supply of goods or service", the acquisition of property by the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain, cannot fall within the definition of the words "supply of goods or service". Justice R. Nataraj held.
Karnataka High Court Rules Secret Commission Claims Need Evidence, Upholds ₹53.48 Lakh Disallowance
Case Title : Shri Rampur Arvind v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.676 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 131
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that a taxpayer cannot claim deduction for alleged secret commission payments as business promotion expenditure without proving the claim through adequate evidence, and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 53.48 lakh claimed as a business deduction. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.M. Manmadha Rao dismissed Rampur Arvind's (taxpayer) appeal and upheld the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer.
Case Title : M/s BSR Infratech India Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.182 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 132
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a contractee cannot retain a contractor's security deposit indefinitely to recover an alleged VAT-related loss unless it proves a contractual breach, actual loss suffered, and its right under the contract to recover the amount. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the appeal filed by BSR Infratech India, set aside the Commercial Court's judgment upholding Indian Oil Corporation's deduction, and directed refund of the withheld security deposit of Rs. 36.64 lakh with 9% annual interest from 31 October 2018.
No Supply Of Service In Building Plan Sanction Process, GST Cannot Be Levied: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Sai Sravanthi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5188 OF 2022 (BDA)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 137
The Karnataka High Court has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot be levied on charges collected for sanctioning a building plan, as the process does not involve any supply of goods or provision of services. Justice R. Nataraj on 21 July, partly allowed a petition filed by Sai Sravanthi Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and others against the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and other authorities, holding that the authorities lacked statutory authority to impose several charges while sanctioning the petitioners' development plan.
Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT On Swiping Machine Rentals By Axis Bank To Merchants
Case Title : Axis Bank Limited v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.215 OF 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 139
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the levy of VAT on rental charges collected by Axis Bank for card-swiping machines installed at merchant establishments. A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed a Sales Tax Revision Petition filed by Axis Bank. “the rental charges collected by the petitioner in respect of EDCT machines constitute consideration for transfer of the right to use goods and are liable to tax under the KVAT Act.”, the court ruled. The petition challenged the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the reassessment orders for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Recovery Against Company For Deceased Proprietor's Business' Dues
Case Title : BKR Services Private Limited v. Santoshkumar Rudraswamy
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 21878 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 143
The Karnataka High Court has quashed GST recovery notices issued against a private limited company for dues of a proprietary concern run by a deceased proprietor. It observed that the company was a distinct and separate entity from the proprietary concern and could not be proceeded against for its GST dues. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by BKR Services Private Limited along with the son and wife of late Rudraswamy B K, who died on May 25, 2023.
Transitioned CENVAT Credit Valid For Service Tax Appeal Pre-Deposit: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Shakti Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 145
The Karnataka High Court on 4 August held that CENVAT credit transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime can be used to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for a service tax appeal. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting a pre-deposit of Rs.79,77,301 made by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger through Form GSTR-3B.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Advance Ruling On Kitchen Exhaust Hoods In Halton India's Case
Case Title : Halton India Private Limited v. Customs Authority
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 146
The Karnataka High Court on 6 August held that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings must examine material produced by an importer to determine whether kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans before deciding their tariff classification. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Authority's order dated 25 March 2026 after finding that material submitted by Halton India Pvt. Ltd. to establish that its imported exhaust hoods contain fans had not been considered.
Case Title : M/s TPJ Carriers v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 15838 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 148
The Karnataka High Court held that Goods and Services Tax authorities must proceed with the sale of seized goods under Section 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 after issuing due notice if the owner of the goods does not avail the available appellate remedy. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad disposed of a writ petition filed by TPJ Carriers, a transporter, and directed the State GST authorities to bring the seized goods to sale by issuing a public notice and serving notice on the owner of the goods at the earliest and, in any event, within five weeks.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Entry Tax Levy On Hydraulic Oil Dismisses Wipro's Challenge
Case Title : Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 581 OF 2023 (TAX)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 149
The Karnataka High Court on 11 August dismissed seven revision petitions filed by Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. challenging the levy of entry tax on Hydraulic Oil brought into Karnataka for use in the manufacture of Hydraulic Cylinders. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's orders sustaining the levy under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act).
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.
Kerala HC
Case Title : The Commercial Tax Officer v. Escapade Reports Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WA NO. 177 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 126
The Kerala High Court has recently reiterated that interest under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act cannot be demanded for any period before the statutory provision enabling such recovery came into force on April 1, 2009. It dismissed the State's appeal, following its earlier ruling in Casino Hotel v. State of Kerala, which had already settled the issue. The Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act imposes a tax on charges collected for specified luxury accommodation and services.
Right To Cross-Examination Cannot Be Denied Over Unretracted GST Statements: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 19986 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 139
The Kerala High Court on 8 July held that GST authorities cannot reject a taxpayer's request to cross-examine witnesses merely because the witnesses have not retracted their earlier statements, observing that cross-examination is necessary to test the truthfulness of evidence relied upon during adjudication. Justice A.A. Ziyad Rahman passed the order while allowing the writ petition filed by Emas Gold and Diamonds LLP against a GST adjudication order passed following an investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
Kerala High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Demand On Bank For ATM Installation In 2016
Case Title : The Branch Manager v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 141
The Kerala High Court has quashed a demand issued by a Sub-Registrar directing a bank to pay ₹37,500 as deficit stamp duty for installation of an ATM under a registered lease deed. It held that the authority lacked statutory power to recover the alleged deficit in 2016. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed that the power to recover deficient stamp duty after registration was introduced only by the Kerala Finance Act, 2019. Therefore, the provision could not be applied to proceedings initiated in 2016.
Absence Of Audit Not A Ground To Reject KVAT Return Revision: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Bhima Enterprises v. Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 14377 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 143
The Kerala High Court on 15 July held that a taxpayer's request to revise returns under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act cannot be rejected solely because its accounts were not audited under Section 42 of the Act. A Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, holding: “A reading of the aforesaid order would show that it pertains to the transportation of certain gold jewellery allegedly not supported by the documents required under the statute. In my opinion, this cannot constitute a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for revision of the return, for the reasons already noticed.”
Director Must Prove He Was Not Responsible For Company's Unpaid VAT: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Commercial Tax Officer v. Vardhanan P.R
Case Number : WA NO. 1253 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 144
The Kerala High Court has recently held that when tax authorities seek to recover a company's tax dues from one of its directors under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, the burden is on the director to prove that the non-recovery was not caused by his negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty. ",,as per Section 39 of the KVAT Act, the onus to prove that the non-recovery was not on account of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty attributable to the Director, is on the said person and not the Revenue. " a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji observed while partly allowing the State's appeal against a Single Judge's order.
Refund Of Service Tax Cannot Be Decided Before Determining Nature Of Contract: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO.19432 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 153
The Kerala High Court on 27 July held that the question of refund or adjustment of Service Tax cannot be decided before the Assessing Authority determines whether the underlying contract is a works contract or a service contract, as the nature of the contract determines the applicable tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji partly allowed the appeals filed by Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited (formerly Pest Control India Private Limited) and set aside the Single Judge's finding that the Service Tax already paid could neither be adjusted nor refunded.
Kerala High Court Grants Wild Planet ITC Benefit, Says Delay Cannot Defeat Statutory Right
Case Title : M/s Wild Planet Pvt. Ltd. v. The Superintendent, Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 7801 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 160
The Kerala High Court on 28 July held that a taxpayer cannot be denied the statutory benefit of input tax credit (ITC) under Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act merely because it failed to file a rectification application within the deadline prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed the petition filed by Wild Planet Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order denying the company ITC, holding that Section 16(5) confers a statutory entitlement retrospectively and that a delay in filing a rectification application cannot take away that benefit when the taxpayer otherwise satisfies the statutory conditions.
Kerala High Court Denies AVT McCormick's ₹49.54 Lakh Refund Claim Over Transitional ITC
Case Title : M/s AVT Mccormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 12964 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 169
The Kerala High Court on 20 August held that a claim for refund of transitional input tax credit can be allowed only if the taxpayer establishes that the disputed credit stood in its Electronic Credit Ledger as on 1 July 2017. Justice Johnson John dismissed AVT McCormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, which had rejected its claim for refund of Rs. 49.54 lakh.
1% Construction Cess Only On Actual Construction Cost, Not Entire Contract Value: Kerala High Court
Case Title : D. Manoharan v. Union of India
Case Number : WA NO. 722 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 170
The Kerala High Court on 19 August held that 1% cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 can be levied only on the portion of a composite works contract attributable to the actual “cost of construction” and not on the entire contract value. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the ruling while disposing of a batch of 18 writ appeals filed by Class A registered work contractors of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA).
Kerala High Court Holds MRF Eligible For Tax Exemption On 'Compound Rubber'
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 42200 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 171
The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that MRF Limited is entitled to tax exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 for “compound rubber” manufactured by the company. It stated exemption cannot be denied by treating the product as covered by the negative list introduced through S.R.O. No. 38/1998 Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed MRF's petition challenging the State Level Committee on Sales Tax Exemption's decision, which had denied the company exemption in respect of compound rubber.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 20081 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 50
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 30 June upheld the orders of commercial tax authorities imposing Central Sales Tax on interstate sales of soya flour, holding that the product does not qualify as exempt “atta” under the relevant exemption notification. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed the writ petition filed by Sonali Soya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and affirmed the tax demand raised against the petitioners.
Case Title : RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 12775 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 57
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that stamp duty on the assignment of loans to an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) under the state government's March 7, 2005 Notification must be calculated at 0.1% of the loan securitised or debt assigned and not on the market value of the mortgaged property. Holding that the notification links stamp duty to the loan securitised or debt assigned rather than the value of the secured property, Justice Maninder S. Bhatti observed, "A perusal of the Notification clearly reflects that the said Notification nowhere speaks about the immovable property or value thereof. The Stamp duty as per the provisions of the Notification dated 07-03-2005 is not charged considering the value of the land which is mortgaged in order to secure the land. On the contrary, the percentage of duty is quantified qua loan securitized or debt assigned. Hence, the market value of the property is not a consideration for the purposes of assessment of 0.1% of Stamp Duty for the purposes of the transaction where a loan is securitized or debt assigned to a reconstruction or a securitization company."
No Excise Duty On Liquor Destroyed In Accidental Fire Without Negligence: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. M/s Som Distillery Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 8893 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 58
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 4 August held that excise duty cannot be levied on foreign liquor destroyed in an accidental fire where the loss occurred due to an unavoidable cause and there is no evidence of negligence or deliberate wrongdoing by the licensee. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke dismissed the State's writ petition and upheld the Board of Revenue's order setting aside the Rs. 38.41 lakh excise duty demand, finding that the factual conclusions were supported by the evidence on record and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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
Case Title : RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.No.14847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 166
The Madras High Court has held that mere communication to GST authorities expressing an intention to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) does not create any legal entitlement to such credit and cannot shield a taxpayer from proceedings for wrongful availment under the GST law. NCLT Case Tracker Justice C. Saravanan dismissed the petition filed by RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., now known as Chennai Business Tower Private Limited, which had challenged an order confirming denial of ineligible ITC of Rs. 92.29 crore for the period between July 2017 and March 2023.
Madras High Court Holds ITC Claim Based On Fabricated Agreement Invalid, Upholds GST Demand
Case Title : Phoenix Marketing Solution v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP Nos. 18739 & 18116 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 168
The Madras High Court on 30 June held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be claimed on the basis of a fabricated contractual arrangement, where the agreement and supporting invoices do not establish a genuine business transaction. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed two writ petitions filed by a proprietorship challenging GST assessment orders for financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24, thereby upholding the demand of tax, interest and penalty confirmed under Section 74 of the GST enactments (relating to tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts).
Case Title : M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. State Tax Officer/Group – VI
Case Number : W.P.Nos.20935/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 175
The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer must first respond to a GST show cause notice before challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law (which deals with tax demands involving alleged fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement). Justice C. Saravanan dismissed Canon India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petitions challenging the GST DRC-01 show cause notices but granted the company 30 days to file detailed replies.
Madras High Court Holds Unreasonable Delay Bars Duty Drawback Recovery, Quashes ₹38.77 Lakh Demand
Case Title : A. Kiyasdeen v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 24628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 176
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that customs authorities cannot recover duty drawback benefits after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, even when the relevant rules do not prescribe a specific limitation period for such recovery. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against A.Kiyasdeen, an exporter for recovery of Rs. 38.77 lakh in duty drawback and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, holding that the proceedings initiated several years after the drawback was granted could not be sustained in the absence of allegations of fraud or suppression.
MODVAT Credit On Furnace Oil Cannot Be Denied For Exempt Intermediate Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number : R.C. 10 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 180
The Madras High Court has held that MODVAT credit availed on furnace oil used to manufacture exempt intermediate goods need not be reversed where such goods are captively consumed or transferred within the same company for manufacturing dutiable final products. A Division Bench of Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel upheld Tata Refractories Ltd.'s claim for MODVAT credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), holding that the credit could not be denied merely because DBM was an exempt intermediate product, as it was used for manufacturing dutiable refractory products.
Madras High Court Holds Lease Area Reduction Cannot Attract Fresh Stamp Duty, Orders ₹1.15 Cr Refund
Case Title : District Registrar (Administration) Central Chennai v. Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : W.A.No.1648 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 181
The Madras High Court on 13 July held that an amendment agreement executed only to reduce the leased area of a property does not create a fresh lease and cannot be subjected to a fresh levy of stamp duty. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the order directing refund of over Rs. 1.15 crore collected as stamp duty from Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd. (now STT Global Data Centres India Pvt. Ltd.).
Madras High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment Under GST For Lack Of Tangible Material
Case Title : MH Metal and Steels v. Principal Commissioner
Case Number : WP No. 24414 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 184
The Madras High Court on 8 July held that a provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be sustained merely by reproducing the statutory language without disclosing any tangible material or reasons to justify the action. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the writ petition filed by MH Metal and Steels, challenging the provisional attachment of its bank accounts ordered on 26 February 2025. He held: “Turning to the second pre-requisite, the order uses the expression “in order to protect the interest of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Act”. This, however, is merely a mechanical recitation of the language of Section 83 and does not satisfy the requirements for issuing an order of provisional attachment.”
Case Title : Eskay Design v. Union of India & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : W.A. No. 2282 of 2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 185
The Madras High Court has upheld a 2014 notification that authorised officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (now the Directorate General of GST Intelligence) to investigate service tax cases and issue show cause notices across India, regardless of where the taxpayer was located. The court held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) was empowered to confer all-India jurisdiction on Central Excise officers through notifications issued under the Finance Act. A division bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala dismissed a batch of appeals and affirmed the common order of the Single Judge.
Madras High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Ford India Over Breach of Exemption Conditions
Case Title : TVL. Ford India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C. No.81 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 188
The Madras High Court has upheld the levy of Tamil Nadu sales tax on Ford India, holding that the company breached the conditions of a state government notification granting a sales tax exemption on purchases of goods used for manufacturing passenger cars after availing the benefit by furnishing declarations. The dispute relates to the 2001-02 assessment year The exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 381 covered purchases of goods used in the manufacture, assembling, packing and labelling of passenger cars and components at Ford India's Maraimalai Nagar factory.
Case Title : SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WP No.23463 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 190
The Madras High Court has directed the GST authorities to adjust tax already paid under the wrong tax head instead of requiring the taxpayer to make a fresh payment before claiming a refund. It held that a taxpayer who has discharged the entire tax liability within time cannot be penalised merely because the amount was inadvertently deposited under the wrong GST head. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the writ petition filed by SYA Homes and set aside the rectification order to the extent it required the petitioner to first pay CGST and SGST dues before seeking a refund of the amount paid under IGST.
Case Title : Sayar Jewellers v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C.No.40 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 189
The Madras High Court has upheld Income tax additions and penalty against a dealer, holding that a revised return filed after an Income Tax inspection cannot protect a taxpayer from the consequences of suppressed turnover. It observed that a revised return filed after detection does not automatically establish bona fide conduct or protect a taxpayer from penalty. "The revised return filed subsequent to Income Tax inspection cannot be a protection blanket for the tax evaders. Even if the Trader pays the tax due based on its revised return, he has to necessarily show that the omission to disclose the true and correct accounts was not willful or intentional. Payment of tax subsequent to the inspection of the petitioner's premises may be taken as a reason for mitigating circumstance to levy less than equal addition, instead of equal addition", the court ruled.
Madras High Court Directs Chennai Corporation To Reimburse Contractor's GST Burden After VAT Change
Case Title : M/s Sakthi Constructions v. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos.15786, 15936 and 15940 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 191
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that government contractors are entitled to reimbursement of additional GST paid due to the transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime if the change in tax law occurred after the award of contracts. A Bench of Justice C. Saravanan directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to reimburse the GST burden incurred by Sakthi Constructions for the remaining works under government contracts that were awarded before the introduction of GST on 1 July 2017.
Madras High Court Directs SVLDRS Relief To SB Aditya Power Projects In CENVAT Credit Dispute
Case Title : M/s. SB Aditya Power Projects Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : WP.No.3060 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 194
The Madras High Court on 25 June held that authorities cannot reject a CENVAT credit claim on a ground that was not raised in the original show cause notice, and set aside the order denying credit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS). Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the petition filed by SB Aditya Power Projects and directed the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration and issue the discharge certificate after taking into account the Court's findings.
Case Title : Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(MD)16757/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 196
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot deny a refund of unutilised input tax credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure merely because the principal input and the finished product attract the same rate of tax, if other inputs used in manufacturing are taxed at higher rates, leading to accumulation of ITC. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed two writ petitions filed by Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited, quashed the refund rejection orders, and directed the GST Department to process and sanction refunds of Rs. 10.88 lakh and Rs. 15.50 lakh, along with applicable interest, within three months after granting the company a personal hearing.
GST Law Does Not Mandate Three-Month Gap Between Notice And Adjudication Order: Madras High Court
Case Title : Raj Machine Tools v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tiruvallur Assessment Circle
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 25946 & 25947 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 197
The Madras High Court on 17 July held that GST law does not require a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a show cause notice and passing of an adjudication order, clarifying that the three-month requirement only applies to the period between issuance of the notice and expiry of the statutory limitation period for passing the order. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy partly allowed writ petitions filed by Raj Machine Tools challenging two GST assessment orders for the financial year 2021-22, holding that the provision does not prescribe any fixed interval between the show cause notice and the adjudication order.
Madras High Court Quashes ₹12.58 Cr Demand Against Pellagic Food, Upholds Advance Ruling Principles
Case Title : M/s. Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 39 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 18
The Madras High Court on 9 July quashed the Customs order passed against Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. that raised a demand of Rs. 12.58 crore as differential customs duty, along with interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that Customs authorities should ordinarily follow the legal principles laid down in an Advance Ruling in similar cases, even though such rulings bind only the applicant who obtained them, unless facts or law change.
Madras High Court Upholds ₹2.66 Cr GST Recovery Against Former Director Of CBIGS Advertising
Case Title : CBIGS Apparels and Jewels v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.Nos. 3204 & 16529 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 200
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that tax dues of a private company in liquidation can be recovered from its former director under Section 88(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, unless the director proves that the non-recovery was not due to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed three connected writ petitions filed by CBIGS Apparels and Jewels, its partner Mrs. N. Seetha, and Yantur Manufacturing Private Limited challenging GST recovery proceedings initiated for the tax dues of CBIGS Advertising Private Limited, a company that had gone into voluntary liquidation.
Madras High Court Upholds 14.5% VAT On Vestige's Food Supplements, Rejects Ayurvedic Medicine Claim
Case Title : M/s. Vestige Marketing Private Limited v. The Union Territory of Puducherry
Case Number : T.C.(R). No.48 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 201
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that products purchased and sold as food supplements cannot later be classified as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines merely to claim a concessional rate of Value Added Tax (VAT). A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax revision filed by Vestige Marketing Private Limited and upheld the levy of 14.5% VAT on the products, holding that the company had purchased the goods as food supplements under the Central Sales Tax (CST) regime and could not subsequently change their classification to Ayurvedic medicines to claim the lower tax rate of 5% under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act.
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Computer Graphics Limited
Case Number : CMA No. 507 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 204
The Madras High Court on 23 July held that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on additional customs duty adjusted through DEPB scrips for imports made before 31 August 2004, as such credit was available only where the duty was paid in cash. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the Revenue's appeal against Computer Graphics Ltd, holding that the taxpayer was not entitled to CENVAT credit on duty discharged through DEPB scrips and upholding the extended limitation period, penalty and interest.
DEPB Licences Not Eligible For ITC Under TNVAT Act Even If Classified As Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. P.I. Polymers v. The Commerical Tax Officer
Case Number : W.A.Nos.384 & 387 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 207
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that dealers cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licences under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, as such licences, despite being classified as “goods”, do not meet the statutory conditions for availing credit. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the writ appeals filed by P.I. Polymers and upheld the Single Judge's order denying ITC on DEPB licences, while reaffirming the earlier Division Bench ruling in Sha Kantilal Jayanthilal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Madras High Court Rules Omission Of 'Wilful Suppression' In Order Not Fatal, Upholds TNVAT Penalty
Case Title : Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case Number : Tax Case No. 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 210
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that a penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act cannot be invalidated merely because the assessment order does not use the expression “wilful suppression” if the material on record establishes deliberate suppression of turnover. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the tax case filed by Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. and upheld the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
Works Contractors Liable To Pay Purchase Tax On Unregistered Dealer Purchases: Madras High Court
Case Title : The State of Tamil Nadu v. I.Vetrivel
Case Number : TCR(MD).Nos.23 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 214
The Madras High Court on 9 July held that works contractors are liable to pay purchase tax on materials purchased from unregistered dealers, even when such materials are used in the execution of works contracts involving deemed sales. A Division Bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan allowed the revision petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and restored the assessment orders imposing purchase tax and penalty on I. Vetrivel.
Financial Crisis Reasonable Cause To Waive Service Tax Penalty: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s.Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3329 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 218
The Madras High Court on 27 July held that penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be imposed where a taxpayer proves a genuine financial crisis as a reasonable cause for delayed payment of service tax, ruling that a Tribunal's finding of financial incapacity based on material on record cannot be interfered with in appeal. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed two appeals filed by the GST and Central Excise Department against the CESTAT order that waived penalties imposed on Artemis HR Services Cbe (P) Ltd. under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 while upholding the service tax demand and interest.
Case Title : Ashok Leyland Limited v. Principal Commissioner and Ex-officio Addl. Secretary to Government of India
Case Number : WP Nos. 28619 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 219
The Madras High Court on 30 July held that Customs authorities cannot deny exporters the benefit of a beneficial drawback circular through later clarifications unless the original circular granting the concession has been withdrawn, quashing orders rejecting 7% brand rate drawback claims on the bus body portion of exported passenger buses. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petitions filed by Ashok Leyland Limited and set aside the revisional orders dated 8 March 2022 and the CBEC communications denying the drawback benefit, holding that the authorities could not impose fresh conditions through subsequent clarifications that diluted the benefit granted under the earlier circular.
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Joint Commissioner
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.14460 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 221
On 5 August, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that the GST Department cannot retain files and documents seized during an inspection once it withdraws the search authorisation under which the seizure was made, and directed the immediate return of all records taken from a jewellery dealer. A Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowed the writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises and noted that the Department lost its statutory authority to retain the seized material after withdrawing the authorisation issued for the inspection conducted on 25 January 2024.
Six Month Limitation For Service Tax Refund Starts From SIPCOT Certificate Date: Madras High Court
Case Title : Shen Long Bio-Tech (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1711 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 223
The Madras High Court on 14 July held that the six-month limitation period for claiming service tax refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 must be calculated from the date on which the taxpayer receives the mandatory certificate from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), and not from the date on which the Finance Act received Presidential assent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting the refund claim as time-barred and directed the department to consider the claim on merits.
Madras High Court Expands GST Search Safeguards, Requires DIN Compliance And Voluntary Payments
Case Title : M/s. Bhima Enterprises v. The Principle Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Tamil Nadu & Puducherry
Case Number : W.P.(MD)No.9040 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 222
On 5 August, the Madras High Court laid down additional safeguards governing GST searches, including requirements relating to search authorisation, Document Identification Numbers (DIN) and voluntary payments under the GST law. Justice G.R. Swaminathan while allowing a writ petition filed by Bhima Enterprises, a jewellery dealer, held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) officers cannot recover tax during search proceedings and that any payment made before issuance of a show cause notice must be shown to have been made voluntarily.
GST Search Grievance Cannot Invoke Criminal Jurisdiction Under Section 528 BNSS: Madras High Court
Case Title : B. Rajkumar v. The Commissioner of Police
Case Number : CRL OP No. 21452 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 227
The Madras High Court on 4 August held that a grievance concerning search or inspection by Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities cannot be brought within the scope of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), merely because tax officials are empowered to conduct search and seizure while following criminal procedure. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy declined to entertain the petition filed by B. Rajkumar, who carries on business as Maharaja Jewellers in Chennai, seeking a direction to the authorities not to harass him under the guise of enquiry or investigation.
Madras High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Indian Bank's Maharashtra GST Waiver Claim
Case Title : Indian Bank v. The Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : WP No. 27544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 228
The Madras High Court on 31 July directed GST authorities to reconsider Indian Bank's application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in respect of its Maharashtra operations. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that when a single order under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 covers operations in multiple States, the proper officer cannot reject a waiver claim under Section 128A of the Act for one State on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if no other officer is designated to consider it.
Madras High Court Orders Provisional Release Of Vimpro Tech Goods Pending Adjudication
Case Title : M/s Vimpro Tech v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 16262 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 229
The Madras High Court on 5 August held that pendency of a Customs investigation by itself cannot be a ground to deny provisional release of imported goods when Section 110A of the Customs Act, which specifically permits provisional release of detained goods subject to conditions, applies. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar set aside the Customs order rejecting Vimpro Tech's request for provisional release and directed the authorities to release the goods subject to conditions, while allowing the investigation and adjudication proceedings to continue. He held: "...the interest of the revenue can be protected by imposing appropriate conditions for provisional release. There is no need to keep the goods under detention until the completion of the adjudication proceedings."
Service Tax | Madras High Court Says Refund Cannot Be Denied For Tax Paid Under Mistake Of Law
Case Title : The Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3249 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 233
The Madras High Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order granting a refund of service tax paid on the supply of floating rigs, holding that the tax had been collected under an erroneous classification and could not be retained by the Government. A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala held that where service tax was paid due to a mistake of law, the Department could not deny a refund merely by relying on the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs Seaport Import Customs House 60 Rajaji Salai v. Msc Agency India P. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 3675 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 234
The Madras High Court has recently restored a ₹90.15 lakh customs penalty imposed on MSC Agency India Pvt. Ltd. It found that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had dealt with the matter in a “very cavalier fashion”, despite the fact that the actual weight of goods unloaded from 150 containers was only 12.5% on average of the declared weight. “We find that the Tribunal failed to note that admittedly, 150 containers were shipped through the same shipping line and in all cases, the actual weight of goods unloaded was 12.5% [on an average] of the declared weight of the goods as per the Import General Manifest [IGM] and the Bills of Lading issued by the shipping line. ,” a Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala observed.
Madras High Court Directs Provisional Release Of 119 Machines, Rejects Retrospective Customs Rule
Case Title : M/s S.P. Associates v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 30536 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 239
The Madras High Court on 3 August held that a Customs notification that came into force after the shipment of imported goods could not be applied retrospectively to deny provisional release of the goods. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed the Customs authorities to consider the request of S.P. Associates, represented by its proprietor Yogendra Pratap, for provisional release of 119 used digital multifunction printing, copying and scanning machines imported under a Bill of Entry dated 17 July 2026.
Six-Month Limit Does Not Apply To Currency Seized As Evidence Under Customs Act: Madras High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Vikram Jain
Case Number : W.A.No.1855 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 242
The Madras High Court on 10 August held that the six-month time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing a show-cause notice does not apply to Indian currency treated as a “thing” under Section 110(3) when Customs officers retain it as material evidence during an investigation. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed a writ appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against an order directing the release of Rs. 21.55 lakh recovered from the premises of Vikram Jain, proprietor of Globe Opticals.
ITC Blockage Cannot Continue Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Metal Trade Incorporation v. State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP No. 35866 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 244
The Madras High Court on 21 August held that a restriction on the use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rules cannot continue beyond one year. Justice S. Raveekumar directed the authorities to unblock the ITC of Metal Trade Incorporation, which had remained blocked for more than two-and-a-half years. He held: “the restriction was imposed on 27.01.2023 and more than 2 ½ years have passed. In view of the same, the restrictions on the blockage ceased to have effect upon expiry of one year and therefore, cannot be continued. Just because the third respondent had passed the impugned communication on 13.09.2023, the blocking of ITC under Section 86A cannot continue beyond one year.”
Madras High Court Quashes ₹4.56 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Shipping Forwarder
Case Title : C. Solomon Selvaraj v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 16050 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 246
The Madras High Court on 19 August set aside a Rs. 4.56 crore differential customs duty demand, along with interest and penalties, imposed on the proprietor of The Sea Shipping Forwarders. A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that the Customs Department failed to record a specific finding, supported by cogent evidence, that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the concealed goods or knowingly facilitated their concealment and attempted duty evasion.
GST Cannot Be Levied On Penalty Imposed On TASMAC Employee For Stock Shortage: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Managing Director v. K.R. Subramanian
Case Number : W.A(MD)No.679 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 248
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 14 August held that GST cannot be levied on a penalty imposed on an employee for shortage of liquor stock, observing that such a penalty arising from an employer-employee relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as a supply of service under GST law. A Division Bench comprising Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar made the observation while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC).
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 HC Declines Writ Relief In ₹112 Crore BOT Annuity GST Case, Holds Appeal Is Proper Remedy
Case Title : M/s Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 245 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MEG) 4
The Meghalaya High Court has held that disputes involving GST classification, interpretation of exemption notifications and taxability of transactions should ordinarily be decided through the statutory appellate mechanism under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and not through writ proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices H.S. Thangkhiew and B. Bhattacharjee dismissed a writ petition filed by Jorabat Shillong Expressway Limited, holding that the company had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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 Munna Chaudhary v. The Union of India
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4593 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 17
The Patna High Court on 17 July held that GST authorities cannot cancel GST registration or reject a revocation application without complying with the statutory safeguards mandated under law, ruling that orders passed mechanically in violation of the principles of natural justice are unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed the writ petition filed by Munna Chaudhary, set aside the GST registration cancellation order, the order rejecting the revocation application, and the appellate orders, directed immediate restoration of the GST registration, and ordered the department to pay Rs. 15,000 as litigation costs.
Case Title : Umagaurav Private Limited v. The State of Bihar
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4914 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 19
The Patna High Court, in the facts of the case, has held that a taxpayer who voluntarily furnishes an undertaking to obtain relief from GST authorities cannot subsequently challenge its validity after accepting the benefits flowing from it. It dismissed the writ petition filed by Umagaurav Private Limited and imposed costs of ₹25,000. A division bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish held that the petitioner, having secured the removal of restrictions on its bank account and permitted one of the post-dated cheques to be encashed pursuant to the undertaking, could not later contend that the undertaking was invalid or obtained under duress.
Patna High Court Upholds CENVAT Credit On Captive Power Plant Despite Surplus Power Supply
Case Title : Commissioner of Central GST and Excise v. M/s Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No. 187 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 19
The Patna High Court on 24 July dismissed the Central Excise Department's appeal against Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order allowing the company to claim CENVAT credit on capital goods, input services and iron and steel items used in its manufacturing operations. A Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh held that the benefit cannot be denied merely because part of the electricity generated in the company's captive power plant was supplied to the Bihar State Electricity Board.
VAT Penalty Refund Cannot Be Denied Over Filing Before Re-Designated Authority: Patna High Court
Case Title : M/s S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 9083 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 22
The Patna High Court on 21 August held that the State Tax Department cannot deny a dealer's refund of a penalty under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 merely because the refund application was filed before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax instead of the re-designated Additional Commissioner of State Tax. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kumar Sinha and Vikash Kumar observed that such a technical objection cannot defeat a legitimate refund claim, and allowed a writ petition filed by S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd., seeking refund of Rs. 1,69,017.
Patna High Court Says Permanent GST Registration Cancellation May Cause 'Civil Death' To Business
Case Title : M/s Super Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 6588 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 23
The Patna High Court on 28 August observed that permanent cancellation of GST registration may virtually result in the “civil death” of a business by preventing the taxpayer from carrying on business, while granting relief to Super Enterprises, whose GST registration was cancelled for failure to file returns for six months. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya noted that Section 75(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requires the authorities to provide an effective opportunity of hearing before taking an adverse decision.
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
Case Title : Sanjay Verma v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : CEA-3-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 34
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2 July held that the one year period prescribed under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 for passing adjudication orders in cases involving the extended period of limitation is not mandatory in all circumstances and cannot be invoked by a taxpayer whose own conduct caused delay in the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Verma, an architect and upheld the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, appellate authority and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that the delay was caused due to the appellant's failure to respond to notices and not due to any administrative inaction.
Case Title : M/s. SRO India v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : CWP-11494-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 35
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently quashed a GST show cause notice after holding that it had been issued primarily by relying upon an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, the use of which was not shown to have statutory sanction. The challenge was founded on a document annexed to the show cause notice and uploaded on the department's portal. The document referred to various AI-based aids and included suggestions to "Tighten this further with case-law citation paragraph-wise", convert it into "Order-in-Original reasoning" and "make it lethal".
Case Title : Luxmi Traders Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (Lead Case)
Case Number : CWP No. 27139 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 38
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or adjudication order on the GST common portal does not amount to valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. It ruled that www.gst.gov.in has not been notified as the common portal for serving notices or orders under Section 146 of the Act. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed, "We have no hesitation in accepting petitioner's submission that the Common Portal, i.e. www.gst.gov.in, is not a portal for the service of notices or orders and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the uploading of SCN or orders on the Common Portal would amount to service of such SCN or order upon the petitioner in terms of Section 169 of the Act of 2017."
Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Ludhiana Trader Accused Of ₹9.66 Crore Fake GST ITC Fraud
Case Title : Rohit Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab through State Tax Officer
Case Number : CRM-M-19525-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 37
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Ludhiana-based businessman accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) of nearly ₹9.66 crore under the GST regime. It observed that continued incarceration was not justified when the prosecution case was based primarily on documentary evidence. Justice Surya Partap Singh, while deciding the bail plea of Rohit Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Maa Steel, Ludhiana, noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than three-and-a-half months. It also observed that the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
Case Title : M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case Number : VATAP-29-2016 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 39
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 20 July held that a bona fide classification dispute cannot, by itself, establish an intention to evade tax for imposing penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax (PVAT) Act. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor allowed the appeal filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. and set aside the penalty of Rs. 94,500 imposed under the PVAT Act for allegedly attempting to evade tax on mobile phone accessories.
Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes ₹59.77 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Initiated Beyond Limitation
Case Title : Sandeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number : CWP-16774-2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 41
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 15 July held that proceedings for recovery of deficient stamp duty cannot be initiated after the expiry of the statutory limitation period, and that stamp duty liability must be determined based on the market value and nature of the property as they existed on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari allowed a writ petition filed by Sandeep Singh and another and set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 59.77 lakh towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges, along with 12 per cent annual interest, for a sale deed executed on 5 July 2018.
Case Title : Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram
Case Number : CRM-M-45265 of 2025 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(P&H) 43
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a director cannot be prosecuted for a company's GST offence without the company itself being arraigned as an accused. It quashed the criminal complaint against Manoj Bansal, a director of Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed, “In the absence of M/s NIPL, being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against petitioner, a Director of the Company would not be maintainable. Unless the company is prosecuted, no vicarious liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Prosecution of the petitioner in his personal capacity without arraigning the company cannot proceed against settled principles of law.”
Case Title : Ankit Goyal v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ludhiana
Case Number : CRM-M-12200-2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 44
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29 July granted regular bail to two accused in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case involving an alleged loss of around Rs. 197.39 crore to the government exchequer, holding that the allegations would have to be tested at trial where the case was largely based on documentary and electronic evidence and the prosecution witnesses were government officials. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal passed the order in petitions arising from a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Ludhiana, under Section 132(1)(b) and Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the fraudulent issuance of invoices and wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit (ITC).
Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Release Of JK Cement GST Refund Despite Revenue Appeal
Case Title : J K Cement Works v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Another
Case Number : CWP-29456-2025(O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 45
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Revenue to release a GST refund to JK Cement Works, holding that the company cannot be denied the refund merely because the Revenue has challenged the refund order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor passed the order on a petition filed by the cement manufacturer, which has a manufacturing unit at Jharli, Haryana.
Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Release Of Roasted Areca Nuts Detained Since November 2024
Case Title : M/s. Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana v. Union of India and others
Case Number : CWP-14871-2026, with connected matters including CWP-28682-2024 and CWP-17983-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 48
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17 August directed the release of imported roasted areca nut consignments that had remained detained in Customs bonded warehouses since November 2024. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor found that the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi had classified the goods as “dried” rather than “roasted” based only on their physical appearance and colour, without applying the scientific parameters prescribed in its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
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
Case Title : Premier Bars Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 630/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 29
The Rajasthan High Court has held that taxpayers whose goods were confiscated under the Central Excise law and who were directed to pay a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation are not excluded from the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. It ruled that they cannot be treated as ineligible to file declarations under the Scheme merely because they were liable to pay a redemption fine. A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Premier Bars Private Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of reinforcement steel and registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title : Gajmukhi Bullion v Additional Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14693/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 31
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the a taxpayer's reasonable apprehension of bias could not be ignored where the Additional Commissioner who approved the investigation report leading to prosecution also adjudicated the proceedings arising from the same facts. The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar consequently quashed the orders imposing penalties and the appellate order upholding them and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea In ₹48 Crore GST Evasion Case
Case Title : Hansraj Gurjar v Union of India
Case Number : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8382/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a second bail application filed by a man accused of being the kingpin of an alleged ₹48.41 crore GST evasion syndicate, ruling that bail granted to a co-accused cannot by itself entitle another accused to the same relief. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, "It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while considering the plea of parity, the court is required to independently examine the individual role attributed to the accused, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and all other relevant circumstances."
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Excise Duty On Scrap Of CENVAT-Credited Capital Goods
Case Title : Shree Cement Ltd. v Commissioner (CGST) and Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 35
The Rajasthan High Court on 3 August held that excise duty is payable when capital goods on which CENVAT credit was availed are subsequently cleared as waste or scrap, even if the scrap does not fall under a specific tariff entry. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by Shree Cement Ltd. against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order upholding the excise duty demand on the clearance of such scrap.
Case Title : M/s Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10055/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 36
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on annuity payments received by road construction companies under concession agreements with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that such deferred payments for works contract services cannot claim exemption merely because they are paid as annuities. A Division Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. Ltd., challenging CBIC Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17 June 2021 and the consequential levy of GST on annuity payments received under its concession agreement with NHAI.
Rajasthan High Court Says Customs Cannot Recover Excess Drawback Without Reassessment
Case Title : M/s Bhati & Company v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19673/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 38
The Rajasthan High Court on 12 August held that Customs authorities cannot directly invoke Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover alleged excess drawback without first reassessing the exporter's self-assessment under Section 17 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Sangeeta Sharma allowed writ petitions filed by Bhati & Company and Latiyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. and granted the Customs authorities liberty to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, if permissible in law.
Rajasthan High Court Says Supplier's Tax Payment Mandatory For ITC, Upholds Recovery From Buyer
Case Title : M/s Shree Karni Electrovision v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4266/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 39
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August held that actual payment of tax by the supplier to the Government is a mandatory condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and that the credit can be recovered from the purchaser if the supplier fails to pay the corresponding tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a writ petition filed by Shree Karni Electrovision, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and an order dated 24 November 2022 directing recovery of ITC.
Case Title : M/s Saini Multispecialty Hospital v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12376/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 40
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 August declined to interfere with labour cess recovery proceedings against Saini Multispecialty Hospital, holding that payment of Rs. 45,000 to a municipal body could not by itself discharge the hospital's statutory liability under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar at the Jaipur Bench held that the cess had to be assessed and deposited with the authority prescribed under the statutory scheme and dismissed the hospital's challenge to the recovery proceedings.
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
Rent For Furniture In Commercial Lease Not Taxable As Deemed Sale: Telangana High Court
Case Title : M/s SDE Engineers Limited and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 9991, 3865 & 3866 of 2009 and T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 43
The Telangana High Court on 3 July held that rent received from leasing commercial buildings along with furniture, fixtures and other amenities cannot be taxed as a transfer of the right to use goods under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (APVAT Act) or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST Act), where the transaction is essentially one of renting immovable property and no exclusive right over the goods is transferred to the tenant. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao allowed a batch of writ petitions and a tax revision case filed by SDE Engineers Ltd. and other developers, setting aside tax demands raised under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act and Section 5E of the APGST Act, which levy tax on the transfer of the right to use goods.
Telangana High Court Upholds Sales Tax On Blended Coffee Sold By Trademark Holder Beyond First Sale
Case Title : M/s. Amalgamated Holdings Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE No.216 & 217 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 47
The Telangana High Court has upheld the levy of sales tax on blended coffee sold by a trademark holder. It held that a dealer marketing goods under its own brand name at a point other than the first sale is liable to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the tax revision cases filed by Amalgamated Holdings Limited. Relying on an earlier ruling, it found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the sales tax authorities and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Best Judgment Assessment Cannot Ignore VAT Composition Scheme Compliance By Contractor: Telangana HC
Case Title : M/s. Chaitanya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others
Case Number : Writ Petition No.20503 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 50
The Telangana High Court on 13 July held that a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained when the assessing authority fails to consider the statutory composition scheme opted by a works contractor and ignores the records maintained in accordance with the law. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Nandikonda Narsing Rao set aside the assessment order passed against Chaitanya Enterprises, a proprietary concern engaged in electrical contracting works, which had challenged the levy of VAT of Rs. 28.09 lakh for the period from September 2005 to February 2008.
Case Title : Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : ITTA.Nos.30, 31 and 32 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 53
The Telangana High Court on 19 June held that tax authorities cannot deny a taxpayer the benefit of a sales tax deferment scheme merely because statutory adjustment orders supporting the claim were not available during the original assessment proceedings, and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining the subsequent orders. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao partly allowed the appeals filed by Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Limited and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the Form VAT-205 adjustment orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and decide the company's entitlement to the benefit under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act (which allows deduction for certain statutory liabilities subject to prescribed conditions).
Case Title : The State of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s Mayuri Film Distributors
Case Number : TREVC. No. 26 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 55
The Telangana High Court on 24 July held that a tax concession granted through a Government notification cannot be withdrawn merely because a new entry is introduced in a tax schedule, unless the notification granting the benefit is expressly withdrawn, superseded or rescinded. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Suddala Chalapathi Rao upheld the concessional sales tax benefit claimed by Mayuri Film Distributors on the sale of audio cassettes, holding that the Government Order granting the concession continued to operate during the relevant assessment year.
Case Title : M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.3704 and 7449 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 57
The Telangana High Court on 5 August held that movement of vehicles from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s Zaheerabad manufacturing unit to its regional sales offices in other States constituted inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda upheld a tax demand of around Rs. 43.48 crore, and dismissed two writ petitions filed by the company. It observed: “...It is not necessary, for a transaction to fall within Section 3(a) of the CST Act, 1956 that the contract of sale be reduced to a single formal document bearing that description. It is sufficient that the covenant or incident of sale be discernible from the conduct and correspondence of the parties, read as a whole.”
Telangana High Court Upholds Law Levying Non-Agricultural Land Tax At Different Rates Based On Use
Case Title : Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : WRIT PETITION Nos.8883 of 1992
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 59
The Telangana High Court has upheld a law that levies non-agricultural land assessment at different rates based on the use of the land, rejecting a constitutional challenge that the levy could become arbitrary if industrial rates were imposed on land not actually used for industrial purposes. The bench comprised Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice P. Sam Koshy, Justice K. Lakshman, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy and Justice N. Tukaramji. The five-Judge bench held that Sections 3 and 8 and the Schedule to the NALA Act are not ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. At the same time, it ruled that land can be assessed at the industrial rate only if it is actually used for industrial purposes.
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.
Tripura HC
Case Title : Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. The Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 285 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 4
The Tripura High Court on 30 June held that Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities cannot initiate adjudication proceedings on issues that have already been taken up by State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) authorities on the same subject matter. A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit quashed a challenge to a demand cum show cause notice dated 22 July 2024 and an Order in Original dated 3 February 2025 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision deals with recovery of tax not paid or short paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
ITC Cannot Be Denied For Bona Fide GSTIN Reporting Mistake: Tripura High Court
Case Title : M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. The Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.379 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 5
The Tripura High Court on 27 July held that a taxpayer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to a genuine mistake in reporting invoices under the wrong Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), when the error does not result in any loss of revenue to the Government. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition filed by Ashutosh Bandyopadhay and directed the GST authorities to permit rectification of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period from 1 May 2019 to 5 February 2020, either through the online portal or through manual means, within four weeks.
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
Service Tax Amnesty Declaration Cannot Be Reopened After Statutory Deadline: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : SSS Constructions v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41087 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 388
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that the Service Tax Department cannot reopen a declaration accepted under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) after the statutory time limit prescribed under the Scheme has expired. VCES, introduced in 2013, was a one-time service tax amnesty scheme that allowed taxpayers to voluntarily disclose and pay unpaid service tax dues from earlier years in return for immunity from further proceedings.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Municipal Multi-Level Parking Not Taxable, Sets Aside ₹1.85 Cr Demand
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I v. M/s Gautam Builders
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60762 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 389
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July held that construction of a multi-level parking facility for a municipal corporation does not amount to a commercial activity when undertaken for public welfare and civic use. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 1.85 crore raised against Gautam Builders, and upheld an order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : M/s. Tata Bluescope Steel (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50001 of 2026 (SM)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 390
On 1 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that job work activity already treated as “manufacture” cannot later be reclassified as an “exempted service” for the purpose of invoking Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and raising consequential demands. A Bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed all three appeals filed by Tata Bluescope Steel Pvt. Ltd., set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and quashed the CENVAT credit demands raised by the Department.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Sub-Contract Road Work Inherits Exemption, Sets Aside Over ₹35 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Harish Chandra Patel v. The Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 391
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that services relating to public road construction executed as a sub-contractor and construction of independent residential houses were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by contractor Harish Chandra Patel and set aside an impugned service tax demand of Rs. 35.14 lakh. The Bench held: “we are satisfied that the contracts of the appellant with these three persons/entities were for construction of roads as sub-contractor which were exempted by S. No. 29(h) read with 13(a) of the notification”.
Case Title : Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50049 of 2026 (along with connected appeals)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 392
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld Customs' classification of Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and their parts as components of automobile steering systems, dismissing 17 appeals filed by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that the issue had already been settled in the company's own earlier cases involving identical goods. A bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, holding that the imported goods were the same as those examined in the company's earlier appeals before the tribunal.
Case Title : Intertek Testing Services India Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 89820 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 393
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to a taxpayer by setting aside a service tax demand. The tribunal held that once the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the services did not fall under the taxable category alleged in the show cause notice, the appeal ought to have been allowed instead of sustaining the demand under a different taxable entry. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban ruled in favour of Intertek Testing Services India Ltd.
Case Title : R.R. Stones Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30414 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 394
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax rebate claim filed more than one year after the Let Export Order (LEO) is barred by limitation under a 2012 government notification governing export rebates. The tribunal ruled that the notification prescribes its own limitation period. It cannot be extended by relying on the general refund provisions of the Central Excise Act.
Suppression In ST-3 Returns Justifies Extended Limitation And Statutory Penalty: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Jain & Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Meerut-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70188 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 395
On 2 June, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that suppression of the actual value of taxable services in ST-3 returns justifies a service tax demand based on mismatch with Income Tax Returns (ITR). Legal case summaries Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that such suppression warrants invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by Jain & Company against the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60427 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 398
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the rejection of its service tax refund claim. It held that notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions on Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units that are not prescribed under the SEZ Rules. The bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed, "the Notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions which are not prescribed under SEZ Rules and consequently the limitation of one year period does not apply in the present case."
CESTAT New Delhi Rejects Duty Demand Under Replenishment Scheme For Jewellery With 2.05% Norm
Case Title : State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC-Import), New Delhi (Connected with Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs and M/s Venus Industries v. Commissioner of Customs)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 50495 of 2021, 50195 of 2020 & 50196 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 396
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that customs authorities cannot demand duty under the Replenishment Scheme when exported jewellery is manufactured through a fully mechanised process and the applicable value addition requirement stands at 2.05% under the Foreign Trade Policy, rather than 3.5%. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC), Venus Industries, and its partner Arun Kumar Agarwal, and set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹3.92 Cr. Demand Based On Compilations, Holds Re-Export Must Be Verified
Case Title : M/s. Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40046 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 397
On 1 July, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 3.92 crore raised against Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that customs authorities cannot deny exemption under Notification No. 104/94-Cus. without independently verifying container-wise export compliance. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the dispute required reconciliation and verification of export records rather than a mere assumption of non-re-export of imported containers.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds Control Of Premises Suffices For Liability In Gold Seizure Case, Cuts Penalty
Case Title : Md. Faiyaz Alam v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76528 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 399
On 2 July 2026, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an individual who controlled premises from which authorities recovered a substantial quantity of gold cannot avoid penalty under the Customs Act merely on the ground that he lacked physical possession, as surrounding circumstances established his involvement in handling goods liable for confiscation. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty imposed on Md. Faiyaz Alam from Rs. 8 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation, Mohali v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51281 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 400
On 1 July, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demands raised against the Mohali Municipal Corporation, on revenue earned from advertisements, holding that a Municipal Corporation was not covered within the term “person” under the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Municipal Corporation, being a sovereign local body, could not be brought within the ambit of taxable service under the category “Selling of Space for Advertisement Service” prior to 1 July 2012.
Case Title : M/s Makin Developers Private Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51048 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 401
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that the extended limitation period could not be sustained in a service tax dispute after finding that the assessee had no intention to evade tax because any amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism would have been immediately available as CENVAT credit. On that basis, the tribunal set aside a service tax demand raised by invoking the extended limitation period.
Case Title : Tata Teleservices Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55075 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 402
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service recipients could use CENVAT credit to discharge service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on imported services before 1 July 2012. It ruled that the restriction barring use of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax where the recipient was liable to pay tax came into force only from 1 July 2012 and could not be applied retrospectively. The tribunal also held that a show cause notice issued in 2017 for the period between October 2011 and March 2012 was barred by limitation because the Department could not justify invoking the extended period.
Case Title : Domnic Jacob Sequeira v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75062 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 405
On 3 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs authorities cannot confiscate exotic birds and mammals or impose penalties merely on suspicion of smuggling, where the goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the Department fails to discharge the burden of proving illegal import. Maps A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by Domnic Jacob Sequeira and Gouse Gaffar Shaikh.
Case Title : Dinesh Prasad v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75468 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 403
On 2 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs cannot treat gold as smuggled merely on suspicion and set aside the confiscation of 1.75 kg of gold along with penalties imposed by the department. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Dinesh Prasad and Raj Kumar Soni and quashed the confiscation order passed by Customs.
E-Rickshaw Parts Without Motors, Batteries Not Complete Vehicles In CKD Form: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 404
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that imported e-rickshaw parts without essential components such as motors and batteries cannot be treated as complete e-rickshaws in a completely knocked down (CKD) condition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed cross-appeals filed by Zeniak Innovation India Ltd and the Revenue in a dispute over customs classification of imported e-rickshaw components.
Case Title : M/s Noor Jewel Impex & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & A.C.C.), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75921
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 406
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, has held that duty-free gold imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme cannot be confiscated merely because it was sent to job workers who were not initially listed as supporting manufacturers. The tribunal held that the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had later regularized their inclusion and that there was no evidence the gold had been diverted to unauthorised entities in violation of the Actual User condition.
Case Title : Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 86063 & 86064 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 407
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. correctly valued prototype commercial vehicles cleared to its own unit for testing on the basis of comparable goods and not at 110% of their cost of production. The tribunal held that the valuation method under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which applies where goods are used in the manufacture of another article, was not attracted on the facts of the case.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Crompton Greaves, Rules Type Test Charges Not Taxable
Case Title : Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85138 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 408
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a Central Excise duty demand against Crompton Greaves Ltd., holding that charges recovered separately for conducting "type tests" on transformers at the request of customers cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Transformer Division).
Case Title : Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42443-42444 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 409
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services such as rent-a-cab, air travel, hotel accommodation, restaurant, telecommunication, insurance and business support services qualify as input services where they are used directly or indirectly for providing output services and are not meant for employees' personal consumption. The tribunal accordingly allowed a refund of unutilised CENVAT credit claimed by Olam Information Services Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Chennai Rejects Reclassification Of Nikrothal Wire To Stainless Steel Wire CTH
Case Title : M/s. Alleima India Private Limited (Formerly Sandvik Materials Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40582 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that the Customs Department cannot reclassify imported Nikrothal wire from Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 75052200 (Nickel Alloy Wire) to CTH 72230091 (Stainless Steel Wire) when the issue has already been decided in the importer's own case and there is no change in facts or law. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by Alleima India Private Limited against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld the Department's reclassification of the goods based on laboratory test results showing high nickel and chromium content.
Timing Difference In Availment Of CENVAT Credit Not A Ground To Deny Export Refund: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Andritz Technologies Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41236–41239 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 411
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July, held that refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on export of services cannot be denied merely on the ground that input service credit was availed after the date of the last export invoice of the relevant quarter, so long as the credit is otherwise admissible and remains unutilised. Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed all four appeals filed by Andritz Technologies Private Limited and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the denial of refund on a timing basis under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) was unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹55 Lakh Excise Duty Demand Over Pre-1991 Duty Collections
Case Title : Kamal Steel Fabricators v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Faridabad-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 54518 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 412
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹55 lakh against Kamal Steel Fabricators. It held that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, which requires manufacturers to deposit with the Government excise duty collected from buyers, could not be invoked for amounts collected before the provision came into force. The tribunal observed, “Any statutory provision unless expressly stated cannot be applied retrospectively. We find that in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the amendment is retrospective.”
Case Title : M/s Shokeen Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Noida & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70641 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 413
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a customs order confiscating gold jewellery and bullion. It held that the panchnama forming the foundation of the case was unreliable because the Department failed to substantiate it by examining the panch witnesses. A bench of Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Revenue's case also rested on statements that had been retracted at the first available opportunity while the makers were in judicial custody. It observed that the Revenue neither rebutted those retractions nor examined the makers of the statements during adjudication.
Case Title : Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41368 & 41369 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 414
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.32 crore against a Coimbatore-based restaurant chain. It held that the chain was not liable to pay service tax on food and beverages served in the physically demarcated non-air-conditioned sections of its establishments. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeals filed by Sree Annapoorna Sree Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. It also set aside the interest and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Sold Study Material And Student Fee Waivers Not Taxable To Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s FIIT JEE Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Audit-II, Delhi Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50722 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 415
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 July held that coaching institutes do not have to pay Service Tax on the value of study material sold separately or on scholarships and fee concessions granted to students. Service Tax applies only to the coaching fee actually collected from students and not to amounts that the institute never charged or recovered. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by FIIT JEE Limited and set aside the Service Tax demand raised on the value of course material supplied to students and scholarships and fee waivers granted by the institute.
No Service Tax On Reimbursement Of Actual Electricity Charges Recovered From Tenants: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Valmet Technologies Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42435 & 42436 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 416
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of actual electricity charges recovered from tenants is not liable to service tax, observing that electricity is "goods" and such recoveries cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service. The tribunal observed, “Further, eelectricity is specifically recognized as "goods" under the Central Excise Tariff Act and various State VAT laws. Hence reimbursements or collections of actual electricity charges as per the unit of consumption, from tenants cannot be recogonised as a consideration for a service rendered.”
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand After Royalty Was Added To Import Value
Case Title : Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41620 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 417
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand that arose after royalty payments were added to the transaction value of imported raw materials. The tribunal followed its earlier ruling in the same company's case after finding that the Revenue had not shown any change in facts, produced any new document, or established any change in law to justify taking a different view.
Department Cannot Selectively Recalculate Service Tax On Works Contract Invoices: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : M/s. M. N. Associates v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21454 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 419
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 July held that the Department cannot selectively compute differential service tax on works contract services by accepting taxpayer's valuation methodology for some invoices while rejecting it for others. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed two appeals and partly allowed another appeal filed by M.N. Associates challenging differential service tax demands raised by the Department.
Volvo Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Royalty Paid For Technical Know-How: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : M/s. Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20137 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 418
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore has ruled that Volvo Buses (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not liable to pay service tax on royalty paid to its Swedish parent company for technical know-how under a Technical License Contract Agreement. The tribunal held that there was no material to show the royalty was paid towards any intellectual property right recognised under Indian law.
Imported Aluminium Panels Used In Mivan Formwork Not 'Moulds' For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax v. M/s. Puravankara Projects Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.20871 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 420
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that aluminium panels imported for use in Mivan formwork cannot be treated as “moulds” for availing Cenvat credit merely because they are assembled into mould-like structures after import. Judicial Member P. A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against an order granting Cenvat credit to Puravankara Projects Ltd., noting that the goods must be assessed based on their identity and classification at the time of import.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹6.25 Lakh Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Annual Income Tax Statement
Case Title : Shri Bhalang Singh Phanbuh v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Shillong
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76611 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 421
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹6.25 lakh raised against an assessee after finding that the Department issued a show cause notice solely on the basis of Form 26AS (an income tax statement reflecting tax deducted at source and certain specified financial transactions) without carrying out any independent verification or investigation. The tribunal ultimately quashed the demand on the ground of limitation.
Case Title : M/s DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70196 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 422
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹5.22 lakh, along with interest and penalties, against DK Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. It held that the company was not entitled to claim exemption meant for services provided to educational institutions because its services were rendered to commercial entities. A single-member bench of Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava dismissed the company's appeal.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows KSB's Concessional Duty Claim For Boiler Feed Pumps Classified As Water Pumps
Case Title : KSB Limited (Formerly M/s KSB Pumps Limited) v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Pune-I
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 85625 of 2022 & 85631 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 425
On 8 July, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that boiler feed pumps and condensate extraction pumps primarily designed to handle water are eligible for concessional excise duty under Serial No. 235 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that such pumps are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item (CETI) 84137010 and not under CETI 84137095 as claimed by the Department and allowed the appeals filed by KSB Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Holds Investment Advice To Overseas Client Is Export, Allows Tata Realty Refund
Case Title : M/s Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85404 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)425
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 7 July held that investment advisory services provided by an Indian company to an overseas client qualify as export of service, even if the advice relates to investment opportunities in India. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. and held that the company was entitled to refund of accumulated CENVAT credit as the services were provided to a foreign recipient and consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Lack Of Independent Findings
Case Title : Merchant & Sons v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87668 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 423
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence. It found that the customs department failed to establish that the broker had breached its obligations while handling exports that were later alleged to have been overvalued to claim higher duty drawback. A tribunal comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the licensing authority had failed to independently examine the allegations before revoking the licence.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Navi Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86647 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 427
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has imposed ₹50,000 as compensatory litigation costs on the Department after observing that proceedings over the refund of a mandatory pre-deposit of ₹33,373 appeared to have been unnecessarily initiated and were meant to harass a genuine taxpayer. The tribunal directed the Department to refund the pre-deposit along with statutory interest. A single-member tribunal of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order directing refund of the pre-deposit with interest.
Case Title : Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.21220 OF 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 426
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has granted relief to Hindustan Newsprint Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. in a service tax matter. It observed that reimbursed employee wages and other employment-related benefits cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service for the period prior to 14 May 2015.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Says Director's Position Alone Cannot Attract Customs Penalty Quashes ₹1 Cr Levy
Case Title : Shri Altaf Ahmed v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Case Number : CUSTOMS Appeal No. 11552 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 428
On 9 July, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a company director cannot be penalised under the Customs Act, 1962 merely because of his position in the company unless the Department proves his active involvement in the alleged offence. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeal filed by Global Enterprises' director Altaf Ahmed and set aside the Rs. 1 crore penalty imposed on him.
Adjudicating Authorities Cannot Modify Final Orders After Appeal Period Expires: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75305 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 429
On 8 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an adjudicating authority cannot modify a rebate sanction order after the time limit to challenge the order in appeal has expired as the authority becomes functus officio after passing the order. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar dismissed the appeal filed by Wacker Metroark Chemical Pvt. Ltd. against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had rejected the company's request for cash payment of the balance rebate amount.
Case Title : Hexagon Capability Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30218 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 430
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8 July held that unutilised Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) lying in the CENVAT credit account as on 30 June 2017 cannot be refunded under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by Hexagon Capability Centre India Private Limited against the rejection of its refund claim of Rs. 22.11 lakh towards accumulated Education Cess, SHE Cess and KKC.
Case Title : Itishree Devi v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75446 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 431
Observing that the revenue had "officially but illegally" usurped more than half of an employee's annual income, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, directed the department to pay 6% annual interest on the amount collected from her. The tribunal held that the interest would run from the date the amount was collected until the date it was refunded. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar observed, "The severity of such a demand is beyond imagination when it is made on a person earning about Rs.6 lacs per annum [Avg for the four years], during this period. More than 50% of her annual income has been simply usurped by the Revenue officially but illegally."
Case Title : India Cements Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30049 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 432
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an importer cannot be compelled to avail a particular exemption notification where more than one option is available. It ruled that the importer is free to choose the notification that is most beneficial. Applying this principle, the tribunal held that India Cements Ltd. was entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid at the concessional rate of one per cent/two per cent on imported steam coal.
Case Title : M/s A to Z Security Company And Other Services v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70614 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 434
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹49.70 lakh against a job work service provider. It held that activities such as repacking old bottles, repackaging glass bottles, barcode sticking, and bottle cleaning carried out for liquor manufacturers constituted exempt intermediate production processes under Entry 30(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Excise Demand On Unmachined Castings Used In Wind Turbines
Case Title : Pitti Castings Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy – GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 26314 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 435
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an excise duty demand against a manufacturer of unmachined castings. It held that castings specially designed and supplied for use in Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEGs) are eligible for excise exemption, even if they require further machining before assembly. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that Notification No. 6/2006-CE applies to goods falling under any chapter and found that the appellant's tailor-made un-machined castings qualified for the exemption.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹50 Lakh Penalty Against Individual In Silk Necktie Export Drawback Case
Case Title : Shri Anupam Mondal v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75730 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 433
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside two penalties of ₹25 lakh each imposed on an individual accused of assisting in a fraudulent silk necktie export drawback scheme. It found that the individual had helped the main accused obtain a driving licence illegally in a fake name, which was later used to open a bank account. However, the bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar held that while this act was illegal and could expose the individual to criminal proceedings, it alone could not establish his involvement in the alleged overvaluation of export goods or fraudulent duty drawback claims in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Case Title : V I S A Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30407 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 436
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by V I S A Steel Ltd., holding that imported quicklime is classifiable as lime under the Customs Tariff and not under the tariff entry applicable to chemically defined compounds. The tribunal set aside a differential customs duty demand of ₹26.60 lakh, along with the interest and penalty. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “There is no dispute on the fact that the imported goods in the present case are 'quicklime' and thus by applying GIR1 it would be classifiable under tariff item 25221000.”
Case Title : Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50092 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 437
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has allowed Shriram General Insurance's claim for refund of ₹28.57 lakh paid towards Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) and Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) on insurance policies that were subsequently cancelled. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied on the grounds of limitation or unjust enrichment after the insurer refunded the proportionate premium and tax component.
Ahmedabad CESTAT Grants Service Tax Relief On Government Staff Quarters, Remands APMC Issue
Case Title : Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar v. Paresh S. Patel
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10884 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 438
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 July held that construction of residential staff quarters and government infrastructure meant for personal use of government employees is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava and Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against contractor Paresh S. Patel. While it granted relief for construction works undertaken for several government bodies, it remanded the issue relating to works executed for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) for fresh computation in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
Case Title : SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42539 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 439
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹37.54 lakh against SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the alleged tax liability surfaced during a departmental audit. The tribunal held that the revenue had failed to establish the wilful suppression or intent to evade tax required to invoke the extended period.
CESTAT New Delhi Restores India-Thailand FTA Benefit To P.C. Jeweller Citing Verification Rules
Case Title : P.C. Jeweller Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 54806, 54832, 54833 & 54900 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 440
On Tuesday, 14 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) cannot deny preferential customs duty benefits under the India-Thailand Free Trade Agreement without following the prescribed procedure to verify Country of Origin (COO) Certificates with the issuing authority. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed a batch of appeals filed by P.C. Jeweller Ltd. and its officials and set aside the customs duty demands and penalties imposed on them.
Meeting Fees To Whole-Time Directors Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge Mechanism: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Oriental Chemical Works v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51489 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 441
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 July held that meeting fees paid to whole-time directors are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), as such payments arise from an employer-employee relationship and are excluded from the definition of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Oriental Chemical Works and set aside the service tax demand raised against the company.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs (ACC Import), New Delhi v. QIAGEN India Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51619-51629 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 442
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that QFT Tubes, though functionally used with ELISA kits, are not entitled to the concessional 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) available to ELISA kits. ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) is a diagnostic testing method used to detect diseases by analysing blood samples. It held that the exemption applies only to the complete diagnostic kit and not to its individual components. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the Department's appeals and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order granting the exemption.
CESTAT Delhi Upholds CENVAT Credit Reversal On Common Services Used For Own Investments
Case Title : IFCI Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51342 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 443
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the demand for proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on common input services used for both taxable services and an assessee's own investment activities. The tribunal held that buying and selling securities on one's own account is neither a taxable service nor an exempted service. It ruled that CENVAT credit attributable to such activities is inadmissible.
Case Title : HPCL Mittal Energy Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 53388 of 2014 and 54247 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 444
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not make ownership of goods a condition for claiming CENVAT credit. It observed that CENVAT credit is attached to inputs and not to persons. The tribunal, however, ruled that a manufacturer cannot claim credit on inputs where the contractor has availed the benefit of abatement under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme), as that would result in the same tax benefit being availed twice.
CESTAT Delhi Allows Pharma Company's ₹70 Lakh Refund, Holds Claim Not Hit By Unjust Enrichment
Case Title : Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51126 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 445
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed a pharma company's appeal and held that its refund claim of about ₹70 lakh was not hit by unjust enrichment, setting aside orders directing the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao. Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd., which manufactures medicaments, had availed CENVAT credit of about ₹70 lakh on input services relating to service commissions.
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40099 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 446
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit cannot be denied a refund of service tax merely because the services were not consumed within the geographical limits of the SEZ, so long as they were used for authorised operations. A single-member tribunal of Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed an appeal filed by ATC Tires Private Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows YRF Studios' CENVAT Credit On Studio Repair and Renovation Works
Case Title : YRF Studios v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 88234 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 447
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed YRF Studios to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid for repair, renovation, and strengthening works carried out on its existing studio buildings. It held that the services were used for maintaining infrastructure from which the company's taxable output services were provided and were not covered by the exclusion applicable to construction services. The appeal was decided by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, restored CENVAT credit of about ₹3.05 lakh, and quashed the penalty imposed on the company.
Restaurants Need Not Reverse CENVAT Credit For Food Supplied As Part Of Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Speciality Restaurants Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85273 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 448
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 15 July held that restaurants providing taxable restaurant services are not required to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 merely because food or beverages are supplied as part of the service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Speciality Restaurants Ltd. and set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit.
Procedural Lapse Cannot Defeat Excise Exemption Benefit When Notification Is Silent: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Power Tools and Accessories v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 75489 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 449
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that the Department cannot deny an excise exemption merely because a manufacturer did not intimate the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities before clearing goods without payment of duty when the exemption notification does not impose such a requirement. A Single Member Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Power Tools and Accessories and set aside the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 6.72 lakh, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Chennai Reiterates NIDB Data Alone Cannot Justify Rejection Of Declared Import Value
Case Title : Wellman Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40088 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 450
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the National Import Database (NIDB) data alone cannot justify rejection of the declared transaction value of imported goods or enhancement of their assessable value. It held that the Customs Department must produce independent evidence of undervaluation and establish the comparability of contemporaneous imports before discarding the declared value.
Case Title : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76097 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 451
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the interest demand raised against Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. on customs duty paid while clearing imported capital goods from its bonded warehouse. The tribunal held that interest could not be demanded merely because the goods were cleared for home consumption without being put to use, where they had been imported with the intention of being used in manufacturing.
Case Title : Anil Lingappa Palle, Proprietor of Khushi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86192 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 450
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside an appellate order that had sustained a ₹1.52 lakh service tax demand after finding that the Department failed to establish that the show cause notice had been served on the assessee before adjudication proceedings were initiated. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma allowed the appeal filed by Anil Lingappa Palle, proprietor of Khushi Enterprises, against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune, which had partly modified the Order-in-Original by reducing the demand to ₹1.52 lakh while sustaining interest and an equal penalty.
Reimbursement Of Stipend Paid To Apprentices Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. India Nippon Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41519 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 452
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reimbursement of 50% of the stipend paid to apprentices by the Board of Apprenticeship Training (BOAT) is not liable to service tax. It held that the reimbursement is akin to a statutory welfare grant rather than consideration for any taxable service. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal filed by India Nippon Electricals Ltd. against the service tax demand for April 2012 to December 2014.
Case Title : Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (Skin Care Unit) v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry Commissionerate
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41001 & 41002 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 453
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd.'s refund claims arising from the finalisation of provisional assessments. It found that the company had established, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate, that the excess excise duty had not been passed on to customers. The tribunal held that the refund claims were therefore not barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar held that the authorities ignored a material document forming part of the record while rejecting the refund claims.
Cisco India's Support Services To Overseas Affiliates Are Export, Not Intermediary: CESTAT Bengaluru
Case Title : Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20743 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 455
The Bengaluru Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 July held that marketing support, technical support, manufacturing support, management support and other business support services provided by Cisco Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entities qualify as export of services and cannot be treated as intermediary services under the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. A Bench of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi allowed the company's appeals against orders confirming service tax demands, interest and penalties on the ground that it had allegedly acted as an intermediary while providing services to its foreign affiliates.
Case Title : Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 59641 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 458
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the inclusion of the value of software licences downloaded from the internet in the assessable value of imported hardware locks (dongles). It held that the downloaded software formed an integral part of the imported product and that its value formed part of the transaction value. A coram of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal filed by Solution Infotech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : TV Today Network Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.51678 Of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 456
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 July held that a one-day delay in filing a revised ST-3 return under Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be condoned as a procedural lapse for claiming refund of transitional CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the order rejecting the refund claim of TV Today Network Limited for Rs. 2.13 crore, holding that the company had failed to establish the admissibility of the CENVAT credit by producing the necessary supporting documents and invoices.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Service Tax Demand On Railway Cleaning and Housekeeping Services
Case Title : Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 79275 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 459
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the service tax demand raised against Khagaul Loco Labour Co-Operative Society after holding that the services provided by it to the Indian Railways were either not taxable, exempt from service tax, or part of the demand was barred by limitation. The tribunal also rejected the Department's allegation that the society had collected and retained service tax from the Railways, finding no evidence to support the claim. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the society's appeal, set aside the impugned order, and, consequently, the demand for interest and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Allows CENVAT Credit To Citibank For Cleaning And Event Services After 2011 Amendment
Case Title : M/s Citibank N.A. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42522 to 42527 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 460
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 July held that Citibank N.A. is entitled to CENVAT credit on cleaning services, general insurance services, convention services, event management services and mandap keeper services. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. partly allowed the bank's appeals, while holding that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed on club or association services, health and fitness services, outdoor catering, rent-a-cab, tour operator and certain insurance auxiliary services after the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1 April 2011.
Case Title : Asian Paints Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85041 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)461
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Asian Paints Ltd., holding that service tax could not be levied on lease rentals collected from dealers for tinting machines after finding that the arrangement amounted to a deemed sale. The tribunal held, "I have no hesitation in holding that the transaction in the case before us is of 'deemed sale' as per Article 366 (29A)(d) of the Constitution of India." The order was passed by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban.
Case Title : Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, Nhava Sheva
Case Number : Customs Apepal No. 86279/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 462
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Imagine Marketing Ltd., the company behind the boAt brand, in a dispute over the tariff classification of imported wireless Bluetooth earphones. The tribunal found that the dispute was purely interpretational and that the Department had failed to establish collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. "There is no element of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts inasmuch as the issue in hand entirely involves interpretation of the Customs Tariff," the tribunal held.
Case Title : The Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30285 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 463
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that manufacturers are not required to reverse Cenvat credit on Sulphuric Acid supplied to fertilizer manufacturers without payment of excise duty under a conditional government notification. The tribunal held that such supplies cannot automatically be treated as "exempted goods" merely because no duty was paid on them. The tribunal observed that the product remained dutiable. It said the exemption was available only for specified supplies made after complying with the prescribed statutory procedure.
CESTAT Mumbai Slams Customs For Missing Records, Calls It Contrary To 'Viksit Bharat @2047' Vision
Case Title : John Miranda v. Commissioner of Customs, Import-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 87108 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 464
On 21 July, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) criticised the Customs Department for rejecting a refund claim merely because it was unable to trace its own records, observing that such administrative failure is inconsistent with the vision of “Viksit Bharat @2047”. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member M.M. Parthiban made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by John Miranda and directing the Customs Department to refund Rs. 3 lakh deposited during investigation after finding that the amount was never appropriated and the underlying duty demand had subsequently been set aside.
Case Title : Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 78732 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 465
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside a ₹7.06 crore central excise demand against public sector undertaking Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd., observing that the appellant, being a PSU, could not be alleged to have acted with mala fide intent to clear goods clandestinely. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "Further, the appellant being a public sector undertaking, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be alleged to be having mala fide intentions to clear the goods clandestinely."
CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Solely Because Running Account Bills Are Not Invoices: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50450 and 50451 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 466
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because running account bills are not conventional invoices, provided they contain the prescribed particulars required under law. Observing that, "The crux of the matter is that the authority needs to be satisfied about the relevant details/particular and not the form of the document," the tribunal ruled in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board.
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹14.88 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts
Case Title : Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40683
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 467
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a ₹14.88 crore customs duty demand against Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. It held that transmission gears imported by the company are classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff and cannot be treated as motor vehicle parts merely because they are ultimately used in manufacturing vehicles. Holding that the imported goods were specifically classifiable as "gears and gearing" under the Customs Tariff, the tribunal said a specific tariff entry would prevail over the competing entry for motor vehicle parts.
CESTAT Hyderabad Quashes Service Tax Demand On UltraTech Over Railway Wagon Freight Concession
Case Title : UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27580 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 468
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the freight concession granted by the Indian Railways under the Liberalized Wagon Investment Scheme (LWIS) is a policy incentive and not consideration for any taxable service. A coram of Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, giving relief to UltraTech Cement observed, "We hold that the appellant has not rendered any taxable service to the Indian Railways under LWIS. The freight concession granted under the scheme is merely a policy incentive linked to capital investment and cannot be regarded as consideration for 'supply of tangible goods for use service'. Accordingly, the impugned orders confirming the demand of service tax, interest and penalties are not sustainable in law."
Case Title : Polychem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax / CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10801 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 469
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 27 July held that the extended limitation period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which permits recovery beyond the normal limitation period in cases involving fraud, suppression of facts or wilful misstatement) cannot be invoked where the law did not require a taxpayer to disclose the information allegedly suppressed. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha allowed Polychem Industries' appeal and set aside the demand for Cenvat credit, interest and penalty after finding that the Department had wrongly alleged suppression of facts to invoke the extended limitation period.
CESTAT Chandigarh Quashes ₹99.59 Lakh Demand, Says DGOV Guidelines Cannot Override Valuation Rules
Case Title : M/s Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 60333 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 470
The Chandigarh Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 28 July held that Directorate General of Valuation (DGOV) guidelines cannot override the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Also that Customs authorities cannot reject a declared transaction value solely on the basis of such guidelines or London Metal Exchange (LME) prices without evidence proving that the declared value was incorrect. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the demand of Rs. 99.59 lakh along with interest and penalty imposed on Fire Stone Metal Pvt. Ltd. over alleged undervaluation of imported aluminium scrap.
CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation Coaching Eligible For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Master Minds v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 27076 of 2013, 23370 of 2014 & 21360 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 471
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that coaching imparted for CA-CPT, ICWA Foundation and Intermediate (10+2) examinations is exempt from service tax under the 2011 exemption notification. It held that these courses lead to educational qualifications recognised by law and that the notification does not confine the benefit to the final stage of an educational programme.
Nicotine Sulphate Not Tobacco Product, Examiner Can't Decide Tariff Classification: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : BGP International v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10003 of 2021-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 472
The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 29 July held that Nicotine Sulphate falls under Tariff Heading 29399900 as a vegetable alkaloid and not under Tariff Heading 24039990 as a tobacco product. It clarified that a chemical examiner can only provide analytical findings and cannot determine the tariff classification of a product. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh set aside the excise duty demand of over Rs. 4.60 crore raised against BGP International.
Case Title : Bijay Kumar Jhunjhunwala v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75837 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 473
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that a person cannot be penalised for allegedly aiding or facilitating gold smuggling merely because he is the father or an employee of the principal noticee. The tribunal said such penalties can be imposed only where the Revenue produces cogent and independent evidence showing that the person consciously participated in or abetted the alleged smuggling. "The relationship of appellant no. 1 with the principal noticee, howsoever close, cannot ipso facto furnish a legal basis for fastening penal liability in the absence of evidence demonstrating conscious participation in the offending transaction," the bench observed.
Case Title : M/s. Sastasundar Ventures Limited (Known as Microsec Financial Services Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75922 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 474
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently reiterated that the nomenclature used in an assessee's books of account cannot determine whether a transaction is liable to service tax. Holding that the Revenue had failed to establish that profits earned by an NBFC from investing in a Venture Capital Fund were consideration for a taxable service, the bench observed, "The revenue has relied upon the accounting nomenclature to confirm the demand on the profit/income earned on the investments, as both the profit from investment and management fees have been clubbed under the same accounting head. It is settled principle in law that the nomenclature used in books of accounts cannot determine the taxability of a transaction."
Coal Beneficiation Not Taxable As Business Auxiliary Service Before June 1, 2007: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South v. Aryan Coal Benefications Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 53733 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 475
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has recently held that beneficiation and washing of coal could not be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period prior to June 1, 2007. Relying on an earlier case involving the taxpayer beore it, the tribunal ruled, "In that circumstance, reliance has been placed in appellant's own case for the earlier case(supra), we hold that the activity of beneficiation/ washing of coal does not fall under the category of “Business Auxiliary Service” prior to 01.06.2007 as the same is classified under Mining Service w.e.f. 01.06.2007" the tribunal observed.
LIC Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Premiums Retained After Policy Lapse: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85811 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 476
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is not liable to pay service tax on premiums retained after insurance policies lapse or are repudiated. It held that retaining such amounts does not amount to a taxable service of "agreeing to tolerate an act" under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. A coram of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that there was no independent agreement under which LIC agreed, for consideration, to tolerate any act by a policyholder.
Case Title : RKPS Impex Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86722 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 478
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that finding excess imported goods during examination, even when their assessable value is enhanced, does not by itself establish misdeclaration under the Customs Act, 1962. Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed that the department had produced no evidence to show the importer had ordered or suppressed the excess quantity of goods, and held that confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained merely because excess goods were found.
CESTAT Bangalore Allows ACC CENVAT Credit On Fly Ash Transport And Pond Maintenance Services
Case Title : ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20134 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 477
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has ruled in favour of ACC Ltd., holding that the cement manufacturer cannot be denied CENVAT credit on services used to maintain a fly ash pond and transport fly ash to its factory merely because those services were rendered outside the factory premises. It noted that the services were used to bring an essential raw material to the factory for manufacturing and threfore outside taxability. "We find that admittedly there is no dispute that the fly ash in question is the raw material / input for manufacturing of finished goods," the tribunal observed.
Skoda's Technical Know-How Licence To Indian Unit Not Consulting Engineer Service: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 87065 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 479
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.'s licence to use technical know-how, technical documentation, and trademarks from its Czech parent company did not amount to a "Consulting Engineer Service" under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench observed that the arrangement was merely a licence to use pre-existing intellectual property and not a contract for engineering advice or consultancy.
Labour Contractor Liable For Service Tax Despite Production-Based Payments: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Padam Charan Guman Singh v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51071 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 480
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that a labour contractor providing workers to a steel company was liable to pay service tax as the agreement was a manpower supply contract and not a job work arrangement for manufacturing. A Bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeal filed by Padam Charan Guman Singh and upheld the demand of service tax, interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (penalty for suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax).
Case Title : Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 75999, 76001-76007 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 482
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside an excise duty demand of ₹8.97 crore against Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (GEECL), ruling that compressing natural gas solely to facilitate transportation does not amount to the manufacture of compressed natural gas (CNG). Relying on its earlier ruling in GEECL's own case and its decision in Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Ltd., the tribunal observed, "The above two case laws make it clear that the activity of compression taken up by the appellant for transportation does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the CEA 1944."
Cut Umbrella Panels Treated As Made-Up Textile Articles, Not Woven Fabric For Tax: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Citizen Umbrella Manufacturers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75192 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 481
The Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 August held that umbrella panel fabric cut into predetermined triangular shapes and sizes is classifiable as a “made-up textile article” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 6307 and not as woven fabric of synthetic filament yarn under CTH 5407. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the demand of differential customs duty, interest and penalty, holding that the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act (which allows recovery of duty for an extended period in cases of suppression or misdeclaration) could not be invoked as the importer had disclosed the description and classification of the goods in the Bills of Entry.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Reclassification Of Poultry Cage Components As Iron and Steel Structures
Case Title : Sri Selvi Weld Mesh v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40488 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 483
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside the reclassification of weld mesh components used in poultry battery cages. It held that the Revenue failed to explain how products admittedly manufactured exclusively for use in poultry battery cages could be treated as iron and steel structures under the Central Excise Tariff. "The Revenue has not made any attempt in placing on record conceivable and convincing reasons as to how the goods under dispute could become structures or parts etc. under CETH 7308. Viewed thus, we are also of the opinion that the Department has seriously erred in rejecting the declared classification without proper justification and hence, the impugned order calls for interference," the bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar observed.
Case Title : Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jammu & Kashmir
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 484
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that consumer goods maker Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on duty-paid raw materials purchased from certain tax-exempt manufacturers. It held that the benefit could not be denied simply because the law was amended later to expressly allow it. "We find that before the amendment there was no express prohibition in the CENVAT Credit Rules so as to deny such credit availed by the appellant. Since the appellant has satisfied the conditions of the CCR, credit cannot be denied for the reason that express provision for the same came at a later date," the tribunal observed.
COVID Limitation Extension Can't Revive Time-Barred Service Tax Demands: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : S.K. Logitech Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75626 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 485
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that the COVID-19-related extension of limitation cannot revive tax demands that had already become time-barred under the statute. A coram of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, "The subsequent exclusion of limitation during the pandemic cannot revive a cause of action or breathe life into a demand which had already become time-barred under the statute. The law relating to exclusion of limitation was intended to preserve subsisting rights; it was never intended to resurrect proceedings which had already become barred by efflux of time."
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside ₹2.39 Crore Service Tax Demand Against SBI Card
Case Title : SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54203 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 486
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside a ₹2.39 crore service tax demand against SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd., holding that a show cause notice (SCN) that fails to identify the taxable service, the service recipient or the consideration cannot sustain such a demand. The tribunal observed, "We find that the SCN does not specify as to what was the service rendered by the appellants and to whom and what was the consideration thereon."
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Service Tax on Packaged Software Sale, Rules It Is Goods, Not Service
Case Title : Horizon Technologies v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86345 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 485
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that packaged (canned) software is "goods". It therefore ruled that its sale cannot be treated as a taxable service merely because the conditions for claiming the available service tax exemption were not met. A coram of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that once packaged software is recognised as "goods" under Article 366(12) of the Constitution, its sale falls outside the definition of "service" under the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Findoc Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (along with connected appeals)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60581 of 2023, 60580 of 2023 and 60272 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 487
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has set aside a ₹4.95 crore customs duty demand against Findoc Impex, holding that unauthenticated documents allegedly obtained from the UAE Customs authorities could not, by themselves, establish that dry dates imported into India were of Pakistani origin. Emphasising that the burden rested on the Revenue to prove its allegations, the tribunal observed, "It is not for the appellant to disprove the allegations of the department. It is for the revenue to prove all the allegations with reasonable proof."
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.77 Crore Penalty Against Maruti Suzuki In Customs Classification Dispute
Case Title : Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 54695 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 488
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a ₹3.77 crore penalty imposed on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. over the classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs). It held that customs authorities had accepted the company's classification of imported Glow Plug Control Units (GCUs) since 2015. The tribunal, however, ruled that the products are classifiable as components of electrical ignition or engine-starting equipment used in diesel engines. Explaining why, the tribunal observed, "The HSN Explanatory Notes to 85.11 extend this heading to electronic control units that regulate ignition/glow-plug operation based on sensor inputs, which is precisely the GPCU's function."
Conversion Of Bare Structures Into Retail Showrooms Is Taxable As “Original Works”: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : West Wind Concepts Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST-Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50759 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 489
On 6 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that converting bare commercial structures into fully functional retail showrooms constitutes “original works” under the service tax law and not merely completion and finishing services, while also ruling that service tax cannot be levied on forfeited customer advances or insurance compensation received for goods destroyed in a fire. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 2.61 crore raised against West Wind Concepts Private Limited, along with the interest and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds No Service Tax On Pre-2016 Mining Rights, Sets Aside ₹89.13 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Roy Engineers v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 490
On 4 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on royalty paid for mining rights where the right to extract minerals was granted before 1 April 2016, even if the royalty was paid after that date. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 89.13 lakh, along with interest and penalties, raised against Roy Engineers, a Bihar-based mining company. It held: “...where the mining lease/assignment of the right to use natural resources was prior to 01.04.2016, Service tax cannot be fastened even if the consideration is paid thereafter...”
Case Title : M/s Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30308 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 491
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 July held that services provided to schools for conducting examinations, including Olympiads and talent search examinations, are exempt from Service Tax as they relate to the conduct of examinations by educational institutions. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi set aside the Service Tax demand of Rs. 1.94 crore, along with interest and penalties, raised against Unified Council Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. for the period April 2014 to June 2017.
Recovery Of LC Charges By Non-Banking Entity Not Taxable As Banking Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50241 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 492
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that the issuance of a Letter of Credit (LC) by a person or body corporate not engaged in banking, financial, or similar activities is not covered under the taxable category of "Banking and Other Financial Services." It ruled that the recovery of LC charges by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) from buyers in High Seas Sale (HSS) transactions is therefore not liable to service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed, "In other words, since the issue of LC by a person or body corporate, not engaged in banking, financial or similar activities is not covered in the list of services of clause (ix), the recovery of LC charges by the appellant from their HSS buyers is not liable to service tax."
LED Modules Imported For Street Lights Attract 10% Customs Duty, Not 20% As Lamp Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Elektron Lighting Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC Import Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51772 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 493
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that LED modules imported for manufacturing street lights cannot be classified as parts of lamps and lighting fittings merely because they are intended for use in street lights. A coram comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya observed that while street lights are covered under the category for lamps and lighting fittings, “the usage/utility of the imported goods is not relevant for deciding classification.”
Registration In Exporting Country Before Import Does Not Make Vehicle Used: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Raju Thomas & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 40761 & 40762 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 495
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that a vehicle does not lose its eligibility for concessional customs duty available for new vehicles merely because it was temporarily registered in the country of export, so long as there is no evidence that it was actually used before being exported to India. The revenue must establish that the vehicle was actually used before it was exported to India. “Mere registration of a motor vehicle in the exporting country does not, by itself, establish that the vehicle had been put to use. The decisive test is whether the vehicle had actually been used prior to export,” the tribunal ruled.
Case Title : Givuadan (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 2961 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 494
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has held that a customs duty exemption claimed on imported flavour compounds cannot be denied without establishing that the goods fall within the exclusion for compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages. The revenue must prove that the goods satisfy the exclusion. A bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi refering to a 2002 notification observed, “what is excluded only those goods that are 'compound alcoholic preparations of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages, of an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5 per cent. volume, determined at 20 degrees centigrade' and unless the Revenue proves the above the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied.”
Penalties For Service Tax Default, Suppression Cannot Be Imposed Together: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Faridabad Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 727 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 496
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has held that penalties for failure to pay service tax and for suppressing facts with an intent to evade tax cannot be imposed at the same time. The tribunal set aside the penalty for failure to pay service tax, holding that it could not be imposed alongside the penalty for suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax because the two were mutually exclusive. “As regards the penalty under Section 76, we hold that once the penalty under Section 78 is imposed and penalty under Section 76 cannot imposed because both the penalties are mutually exclusive,” the tribunal observed.
Missing Shipping Bills Cannot Deny IGST Refund For Bhutan Exports: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Multiplex Corporation v. Commissioner of CGST, CX & Customs, Guwahati
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75882 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 496
On 10 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that failure to file Shipping Bills for exports to Bhutan, particularly during the initial implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, could not justify denial of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund where the actual export of goods and payment of IGST were undisputed. A Single Member Bench comprising Justice (Retd.) R. Muralidhar set aside the rejection of refund and Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on Multiplex Corporation, which had exported three consignments to Bhutan in July and August 2017.
Case Title : Capricorn Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86161 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 499
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the 15-day time limit for granting a post-decisional hearing to a suspended Customs Broker is mandatory and cannot be extended by the customs authorities. A bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A K Jyotishi was considering Capricorn Logistics' appeal against the order continuing its suspension. Regulation 16(2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs to give a suspended Customs Broker an opportunity of hearing within 15 days from the date of suspension.
Allahabad CESTAT Sets Aside ₹22.84 Crore HCL Infosystems Service Tax Demand As Time-Barred
Case Title : M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70695 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 500
On 10 August, the Allahabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the Rs. 22.84 crore service tax demand against HCL Infosystems Ltd., holding that the demand up to September 2014 was barred by limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan also clarified that the demand for the post-1 July 2012 period was unsustainable on the basis of the provisions invoked by the Department.
CESTAT Mumbai Holds CCSP Suspension Must Be Preventive Not Punitive, Restores ICTPL Licence
Case Title : International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), Mumbai
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 85943 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 501
On 10 August, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the power to immediately suspend a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) approval under Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR) is preventive and not punitive, and can be exercised only where a demonstrable and continuing threat requires immediate action. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A K Jyotishi set aside the continued suspension of International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd.'s (ICTPL) approval to operate its Container Freight Station (CFS) at Nhava Sheva and directed the jurisdictional Commissioner to restore its licence.
Case Title : J.P. Logistics v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 70251 of 2022 and 70831 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 502
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently held that a document issued by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) need not be titled a “consignment note” to qualify as one, as its substance and contents are material. A bench comprising Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan relied on the words “by whatever name called” in Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which defines a GTA. The provision covers a person providing services relating to transportation of goods by road who issues a consignment note “by whatever name called”.
Case Title : M/s Dabur India Ltd. (Unit-II) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax, Jammu & connected appeals
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 60449 to 60460 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 503
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has sent back a batch of appeals involving demands against Dabur India Ltd.'s Jammu and Kashmir units for allegedly taking refunds or self-credit in excess of the value addition permitted under the applicable exemption. For Unit I, the Department had demanded ₹3.45 crore as repayment of self-credit and a further ₹12.41 lakh as excise duty. For Unit II, it had demanded ₹5.40 crore as repayment of self-credit and a further ₹2.43 crore as excise duty.
Customs Law Does Not Recognise 'Substantial Compliance' In Matters Of Warehousing: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Oswal Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30067 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 504
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has recently ruled that Customs law does not recognise the concept of “substantial compliance” in warehousing. It rejected Oswal Minerals Ltd.'s argument that its imported manganese ore substantially remained under the custody of the same warehouse operator. “Customs law does not recognise the concept of “substantial compliance” in matters concerning warehousing. What the statute requires is deposit of the imported goods in the warehouse specifically approved and licensed under the Customs Act. Storage of warehouse goods in any premises other than the approved bonded warehouse cannot be treated as compliance merely because both premises were under the management of the same operator.,” the tribunal observed.
Service Tax Payment Can't Create Liability Where Tax Is Not Payable: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sun Bright Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50326 of 2021 & 54668 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 505
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has held that merely because a taxpayer wrongly collects or pays service tax, it does not make an otherwise non-taxable activity liable to tax. “However, the fact that some amount was collected and deposited does not create a charge of service tax and no service tax will become payable and no exemption which is otherwise available will become unavailable,” the tribunal observed. The bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was hearing two appeals filed by Sun Bright Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against a service tax demand and rejection of its refund claim for an amount deposited during investigation.
CESTAT Delhi Holds Consultancy To Single Client Cannot Be Treated As Intermediary Services
Case Title : Principal Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Jaipur I v. National Engineering Industries Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50560 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 506
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that consultancy services provided directly to a service recipient cannot be classified as intermediary services merely because the consultancy helps the recipient deal with third parties. The bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that an intermediary arrangement requires three parties. The intermediary must facilitate or arrange the main supply between the other two.
CESTAT Kolkata Allows CENVAT Credit On Steel Used To Manufacture Capital Goods
Case Title : Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex., Bolpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 78923 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 507
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. to claim CENVAT credit on MS angles, channels, joists and plates used to manufacture capital goods for use within its factory. The tribunal also allowed credit on welding rods and oxygen. Judicial Member R. Muralidhar observed, “From the above Certificate, it is seen that the goods in question including the welding rods and oxygen have been used within the factory premises for manufacturing of capital goods and machines.”
Service Tax Demand Cannot Go Beyond Show-Cause Notice: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Gandharva Infrastructure and Projects Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of CGST – Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51031, 51032 & 51038 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 508
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has reiterated that adjudicating and appellate authorities cannot confirm a service tax demand under a category different from the one specified in the show-cause notice. The assessee must be put on notice about the category of taxable service under which the demand is proposed. The bench comprised Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao.
CESTAT Must Decide All Issues As Final Fact-Finding Authority: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Prima Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 78 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 461
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), as the final fact-finding authority under the statute, must adjudicate all issues arising from the record. Failure to consider a contention and render a finding on it amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction, the court observed. “The CESTAT, being the final fact-finding authority under the statute, was duty bound to adjudicate on all issues arising from the record. Its failure to consider the aforesaid contentions and not render findings thereon amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it,” a Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla ruled.
Case Title : ECI BJCL JV v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23371 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 509
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that a later statutory requirement of a 10% pre-deposit could not cure an earlier failure to comply with a 50% deposit condition imposed for pursuing an appeal. The amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, introduced a mandatory 10% pre-deposit from August 6, 2014. Since the appeal had already been dismissed on July 23, 2014 for failure to comply with the 50% condition, the later provision could not be used to cure the default.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST v. Big C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30059 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 510
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that the Revenue cannot continue an appeal concerning a tax dispute after the assessee has settled it under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and received a discharge certificate covering the same matter and period. “Once the statutory authorities themselves accept the declaration and issue discharge certificate, the dispute reaches finality. Neither the assessee nor the Department can thereafter continue litigation relating to the same matter except in situations specifically carved out under the statute,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10441 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 511
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has held that a 2022 notification prescribing a time limit for post-export conversion of Shipping Bills cannot be applied retrospectively to exports made before it came into force. A coram comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh ruled that the notification had no application to Metalloys Recycling Ltd.'s exports made between October 2019 and January 2022.
Case Title : Roy Global Trading Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76318 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 511
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the one-year time limit introduced in 2022 for converting Free Shipping Bills into EPCG Shipping Bills cannot be applied to exports made before the rule came into force. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the time limit under the 2022 notification has no retrospective effect. “Therefore, the time limit given therein cannot be applied for the cases where the exports have taken place during the earlier period,” the tribunal observed.
Export Duty Recovery Premature Before Finalisation Of Provisional Assessment: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : S.K. Brothers & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60035, 60036, 60041, 60042 and 60045 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 512
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹26.96 lakh export duty demand against S.K. Brothers. The court held that duty recovery proceedings cannot be initiated before a provisional assessment is finalised. The bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar found that the rice consignments were allowed to be exported on provisional assessment while samples were being tested to determine the nature of the rice.
Non-Manufacturer Must Deposit Excess Excise Duty Collected From Buyer: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Vihaan Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50243 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 513
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that a non-manufacturer who collects an amount representing excise duty in excess of the actual duty paid on goods must deposit the excess amount with the Central Government. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao made the ruling while dismissing Vihaan Enterprises' appeal against a ₹4.00 crore demand under the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest.
Aircraft 'Dry Lease' Taxable Where Lessor Retains Possession, Effective Control: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Orient Flight School v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40800 & 40801 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 514
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that merely calling an aircraft arrangement a “lease” does not mean that possession and effective control have been transferred to the other party. The tribunal found that Orient Flight School retained effective control and legal possession of the aircraft, and upheld the service tax levy on the arrangement as “Supply of Tangible Goods Service."
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs v. M/s Mars International India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : CEA No. 21 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)62
The Telangana High Court has held that an appeal against a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order involving the taxability or classification of a service lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, and not before the High Court under Section 35G. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs against Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue had challenged a CESTAT order that set aside the service tax demand and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Imported Laptop LCD Panels Are Flat Panel Displays, Not Computer Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : N.R. Computech v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Export), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50135 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 515
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that separately imported laptop LCD panels are classifiable as flat panel display modules, rather than as parts or accessories of computers. The tribunal ruled that their intended use in laptops could not determine their classification when the goods retained their identity as separately presented display modules at the time of import.
Case Title : HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Central
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85744/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 516
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held on 17 August that service tax cannot be separately demanded on the interchange fee earned by a credit card issuing bank when the bank has already paid service tax on the entire Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the service tax demands raised against HDFC Bank Ltd., along with interest and penalties, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. Citibank N.A.
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate v. Tata Communications Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86009 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 August held that transponder bandwidth services received by Tata Communications Limited from foreign satellite service providers constitute telecommunication services and cannot be classified as Business Support Services (BSS). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner's order dropping service tax demands against the company.
DBS Bank Indian Branch's ECB Services To Singapore Office Not 'Intermediary Services': CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : DBS Bank India Limited (Successor in Business of DBS Bank Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86069 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
On 17 August, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services provided by DBS Bank's Indian branch to its Singapore head office in connection with External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) cannot be treated as “intermediary services” for levy of service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Indian branch and DBS Bank Singapore were not two different persons but formed part of the same legal person. Therefore, activities carried out by the former for its head office could not be treated as services rendered by one person to another.
Foreign University Agent Not 'Intermediary' Without Tripartite Arrangement: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jalandhar v. M/s Trivedi Overseas Education Services
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60172 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)518
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 August held that an overseas education consultant cannot be treated as an “intermediary” merely because it acts as an agent of foreign universities and receives commission from them. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Trivedi Overseas Education Services, holding that where there is no tripartite arrangement and only one service is involved, merely describing the consultant as an “agent” does not make it an intermediary.
Deletion Of 'Setting Up' Does Not Bar CENVAT Credit On Plant-Setting Services: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 12756 of 2019-DB and 10075 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 520
On 19 August, the Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the expression “setting up” was omitted from the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, with effect from 1 April 2011. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partially allowed appeals filed by ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. against denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 78.18 lakh, along with interest and penalties, and remanded the matter for a service-wise examination of the disputed services.
Case Title : M/s Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30146 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 521
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that earth excavation and site formation work carried out by a sub-contractor for a government dam project qualified as a works contract service, even though the sub-contractor had not actually paid VAT. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to exemption from service tax under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal consequently set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
Customs Act | CESTAT Chennai Holds S.117 Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Without Finding Of Contravention
Case Title : Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Preventive Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40052 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 522
The CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the ₹4 lakh penalty imposed on Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, finding that there was no established contravention warranting penalty. A Bench comprising Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial) found that 100% examination of the cargo had revealed nothing objectionable and that the documents furnished by Dahnay Logistics were not found wanting. The Tribunal held that Section 117 could not be invoked mechanically and that a penalty required an established contravention or failure to comply with a statutory obligation.
Case Title : M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27989 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 523
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 August held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Rent-a-Cab, Outdoor Catering, Event Management, Cleaning and Photography services merely because they have no nexus with the output services. A Bench comprising Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., holding that credit on these services was allowable, while remanding other issues for verification.
NIL Value Invoices Can't Disguise Overburden Disposal As Sale To Avoid Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50873 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 524
On 20 August, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that lifting and disposal of mining overburden cannot be treated as a sale merely because invoices were issued, where the transaction involved no sale price or consideration. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao found that the arrangement between Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and Jindal Saw Ltd. (JSL) involved the provision of a taxable service, upheld the service tax demand, and dismissed both appeals.
Service Tax Refund On Advance Cannot Be Time-Barred After Contract Termination: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Sry Real Estate Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75088 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 525
On 20 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax paid on an advance is refundable where the contract is subsequently terminated without any service being provided, and that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to such a refund claim. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Sry Real Estate Private Limited against rejection of its service tax refund claim.
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties On DLF Projects For Service Tax Dispute Over Ongoing Projects
Case Title : M/s DLF Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54780 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)526
On 21 August, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a taxpayer's bona fide belief on the applicability of a service tax valuation scheme to ongoing projects can constitute reasonable cause for non-payment of differential tax, warranting waiver of penalties. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the penalties imposed on DLF Projects Ltd. under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, while upholding the service tax and interest liability already discharged by the company.
12% Interest Payable On Redemption Fine Deposits From Date Of Deposit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60490 and 60519 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)527
The Chandigarh Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that interest at 12% per annum is payable on redemption fine amounts deposited by an importer for securing release of goods, from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, holding that such interest is compensatory in nature. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg allowed two appeals filed by Hindustan Distributors seeking interest on refunds of Rs. 18 lakh and Rs. 27 lakh representing redemption fines deposited for release of imported goods and directed payment of 12% interest on the redemption fine amounts.
Vodafone Idea's Five-Year Delay Cannot Curtail Statutory Interest On Pre-Deposit: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Vodafone Idea Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51163 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 528
On 24 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed Vodafone Idea Ltd.'s appeal against the denial of interest on its service tax pre-deposit. A Bench comprising Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that interest under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act is payable from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, regardless of the reason for the delay. He held: “As per Section 35FF interest has to be paid from the date of payment of the amount as pre-deposit till the date of its refund. The intervening period may be short or long and may have been due to any reason whatsoever.”
DDA's Statutory Status Does Not Exempt Its Commercial Leasing From Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Delhi Development Authority v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II & Anr.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50278 of 2017 and 50191 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 529
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August held that the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) statutory status does not exempt its commercial leasing activities from Service Tax. Also, receipts from leasing Government or Nazul land against lease premium, ground rent or other considerations are taxable when they are not compulsory statutory levies. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed two appeals filed by DDA against Service Tax demands for the periods from 2007-08 to 2014-15, upholding the original adjudicating authority's exclusion of the demand relating to renting of vacant land before 1 July 2010.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Holds ₹54 Lakh Recovery Against Panasonic Time-Barred, Faults Department's Inaction
Case Title : Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Gandhidham
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11111 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 530
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 24 August set aside recovery of Rs. 54,00,034 from Panasonic Life Solutions India, holding that the Department's show cause notice issued nearly six years after the credit was taken was barred by limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that recovery of irregular or excess credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Natural Rubber Latex Toy Balloons Classifiable As 'Toys', Not As 'Rubber Articles': CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Vee Vee Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55805 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 531
On 24 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that toy balloons made of natural rubber latex are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9503 as “toys” and not under Chapter 40 as “rubber products.” Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Revenue's classification of the goods imported by Vee Vee Enterprises, JMD Impex and V.K. Import Export Co. stating that specific functional classification prevails over a general material-based classification.
Arbitrary Turnover Projections Cannot Support Best-Judgment Service Tax Assessment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi (East)
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51848 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 532
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that best-judgment assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot rest on arbitrary percentage growth or earlier-year turnover when actual financial records are available. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside an order confirming Service Tax and CENVAT credit liabilities of about Rs. 60 crore against Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Sample Purchase Orders Cannot Establish All Sales Were FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST v. M/s Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30482 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 533
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that the Revenue cannot presume that all sales were on FOR (Free on Road) basis merely from sample purchase orders relied upon in the show cause notice. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed the Department's appeal against Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the dropping of the substantial portion of the differential Central Excise duty demand for the period from November 2012 to March 2017.
Customs Cannot Reclassify Fabrics Without Laboratory Test To Determine Composition: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Elvance Overseas LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76577 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 534
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata held that Customs authorities cannot change the classification of imported fabrics merely on the basis of their description without conducting a laboratory test to determine their actual composition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside a Rs. 39.12 lakh differential customs duty demand against Elvance Overseas LLP, holding that the Department could not treat fabrics described as “Polyester Warp Knitted Fabrics” as 100% synthetic without scientific evidence establishing their fibre composition.
STPI Charges For SOFTEX Certification And NOCs Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Software Technology Park of India v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20226 of 2014 & 30531 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 535
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that charges collected by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) from software exporters for certifying SOFTEX forms, issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and providing related assistance constitute consideration for taxable Business Support Services and are liable to Service Tax. Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed two appeals filed by STPI against Service Tax demands, including a demand of over Rs. 5.15 crore for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12, along with interest and penalties.
Mark-Up On Non-Taxable Ocean, Air Freight Can't Be Taxed As Business Support Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41329 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 536
On 28 August, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be imposed on the mark-up earned by a freight forwarder on ocean or air freight when the underlying freight was not taxable during the relevant period. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that where the principal activity itself was outside the service tax net, the profit earned from that activity could not be separated and taxed as consideration for a distinct service.
Case Title : Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85678
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 537
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August allowed four appeals filed by Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. against rejection of its refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that the Revenue cannot deny refund of accumulated CENVAT credit by treating services as not export of services when it had not initiated proceedings to recover service tax on those very services.
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.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Rules Paper Bags Attract 5% GST, Not 18%
Case Title : In Re: Canpac Trends Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/24
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that paper bags manufactured from paper or paperboard are liable to GST at 5% under the entry covering paper sacks, paper bags and biodegradable bags, and not under the competing 18% entry applicable to certain goods falling under the same tariff heading. Holding that the concessional entry was introduced to encourage environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags, the Authority observed, "The very purpose of the Government in inserting this entry appears to be to promote the production of paper sacks/bags and bio-degradable bags which are eco-friendly and environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags."
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.
GSTAT
Case Title : Dow Chemical International Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon, Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number : APL/2/PB/2026 to APL/7/PB/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (MUM) 26
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has held that procurement services received by Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. from its Switzerland-based group entity were imports of services and not intermediary services, making them liable to Goods and Services Tax in India. A division bench of President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta dismissed the company's appeals against the rejection of refund claims exceeding ₹13.41 crore of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid under the reverse charge mechanism.
GSTAT Launches Token Facility For Appellants Facing Issues In E-Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has activated the token generation facility for appellants facing issues while filing appeals on its e-filing portal. The facility is available through the scrolling highlights on the portal's home page. A token generated on or before July 31, 2026, will be treated as sufficient compliance with the appeal filing deadline. The appellant must, however, complete the actual filing within 60 days from the date of token generation.
Recovery Of Inadmissible Pre GST CENVAT Credit Must Proceed Under Earlier Tax Laws: GSTAT Thane
Case Title : Tata Unistore Limited v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case Number : Appeal No. APL/8/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (THA) 27
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has recently clarified that GST authorities cannot use Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act to question tax credits that businesses earned before GST came into force and later carried forward into the GST system. Referring to Sections 142(6)(a) and 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, the tribunal observed, "From the above-cited provisions it is clear that recovery proceedings related to inadmissible credit under erstwhile laws can be initiated only under the provisions of the erstwhile laws, even after enactment of the CGST Act."
10% Pre-Deposit For Penalty-Only GST Appeals Cannot Apply Retrospectively: GSTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal-I Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/623/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(HYD) 28
The Hyderabad Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 July held that the 10% pre-deposit requirement introduced for penalty-only appeals under the proviso to Section 112(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be applied retrospectively. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Sushil Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas allowed the appeal filed by Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and held that the amended provision would not apply where the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were issued before 1 October 2025.
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.
Other Developments
Centre Extends GSTAT Appeal Deadline To July 31 For Legacy GST Orders
The Centre has extended the deadline for filing legacy appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) by a month, giving taxpayers until July 31, 2026, to file appeals against orders communicated before May 1, 2026. The extension replaces the earlier June 30 deadline and has been notified by the Ministry of Finance. Under the revised timeline, departmental applications in respect of orders passed before February 1, 2026, can also be filed until July 31. Appeals against orders communicated on or after May 1, 2026, and departmental applications relating to orders passed on or after February 1, 2026, will continue to be governed by the normal limitation periods prescribed under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
Arrest Under GST Law Need Not Await Tax Adjudication If 'Reason To Believe' Exists: Chennai Court
Case Title : Dr. Obed Ulla A v. State
Case Number : Crl.M.P. No. 5550 of 2026 in R.R. No. 9 of 2026
A Chennai court has recently refused bail to a director of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. in a GST evasion case, holding that authorities need not wait for completion of tax adjudication before making an arrest if they possess sufficient material to form a "reason to believe" that an offence has been committed. Principal Sessions Judge S. Karthikeyan dismissed the bail plea of Dr. Obed Ulla A, who was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on June 12 in connection with an investigation into alleged GST evasion. The court found that the investigation remained at an early stage and that custodial interrogation was still necessary.
CBIC Notifies Rules For Preferential Tariff Benefits Under India-UK CETA Ahead Of 15 July Rollout
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 3 July notified the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between India and the United Kingdom) Rules, 2026, paving the way for implementation of the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) from 15 July. They will come into force on the same day as the trade pact.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has constituted a Working Group to examine a proposal for centralised administration of taxpayers holding multiple Goods and Services Tax (GST) registrations under the same Permanent Account Number (PAN). The proposal covers taxpayers whose GST registrations fall under different Central Tax jurisdictions. The move is aimed at promoting ease of doing business and improving administrative efficiency. It seeks to streamline GST administration for taxpayers with multiple GSTINs registered under different Central Tax jurisdictions.
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.