Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: January 26 - February 01, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
2 Feb 2026 1:50 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds Odisha Entry Tax Act, Dismisses Tata Sponge Iron's Challenge
Case Title : Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. vs the State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 13502/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 24
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed Tata Sponge Iron Limited's challenge to the constitutional validity of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, and upheld the Orissa High Court's refusal to entertain the plea. The company had also sought a refund of entry tax collected by the State of Odisha. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale said there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's order.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Union's Appeal Against Bombay High Court Ruling On IGST Penalties
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS A. R. SULPHONATES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Case Number : DIARY NO. 72829/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 28
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union government challenging a Bombay High Court ruling, which held that, prior to a 2024 amendment, the Customs Tariff Act did not permit the levy of interest, penalty, confiscation, or redemption fine on Integrated Goods and Services Tax collected on imported goods. A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order after hearing the Additional Solicitor General for the Revenue and counsel for the importer.
Case Title : Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax, DGST Delhi vs Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2752/2026
The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment that had held that educational consultancy services provided by Indian entities to foreign universities qualify as exports of services and are not taxable as intermediary services under the GST law. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue. The Court also extended by two months the time granted to the Department to process the refund as directed by the appellate authority.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ola Parent ANI's Plea Against Delayed Service Tax Order
Case Title : ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : SLP(C) NO. 3185/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 33
The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pursue a statutory appeal against a service tax demand. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no valid ground was made out to disturb the High Court's decision. The court agreed that the writ petition was rightly not entertained.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : Shweta Aditya Malhotra Vs The Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 12021 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 51
The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that stamp duty on a sale certificate issued pursuant to a court-monitored auction, including auctions conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, must be levied on the auction price and not on a higher market value independently assessed by stamp authorities. A Single Judge Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that once a property is sold through a transparent, court-supervised auction process, stamp authorities cannot reassess its value by applying independent valuation rules. The court said such reassessment would amount to stamp authorities sitting in appeal over a judicially supervised sale.
CENVAT Refunds For Deemed Exports Barred After One Year from End of Claim Period: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Inventys Research Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.1/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 52
The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has recently held that a refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit linked to deemed exports must be filed within the one-year time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which governs refund claims under excise law. The court said this limitation applies even when the refund is sought under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which allows exporters to seek a refund of credit that cannot be utilised.
Calcutta HC
Tax Authorities Cannot Exceed Scope of Show Cause Notice: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : M/s. Duakem Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Strand Road, Chinabazar and Rajakatra Charge & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 9951 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 31
The Calcutta High Court emphasised that a GST adjudicating authority cannot deny tax exemption on grounds that were never raised in the show cause notice. A Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai set aside an adjudication order passed against M/s Duakem Pharma Pvt. Ltd., observing that the proper officer exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by deciding an issue that was never put to the assessee for explanation.
Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance GST Liability Without Hearing Taxpayer: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Lakshmi Narayan Shah vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.
Case Number : WPA 6227 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 23
The Calcutta High Court on 14 January reiterated that a GST appellate authority cannot enhance taxable turnover or impose a higher rate of tax on grounds that were never part of the original adjudication, without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard. A Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai set aside an appellate order which enhanced the petitioner's taxable turnover by adding zero-rated supplies of Rs. 27 lakh and imposed GST at 18%, holding that such enhancement at the appellate stage violated the safeguards under the second proviso to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Delhi HC
Vague Show Cause Notice Can't Justify Retrospective GST Cancellation: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Glo Interio vs. Sales Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C)-655/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 62
The Delhi High Court recently held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively on the basis of a vague show cause notice, even where the appeal against such cancellation is delayed. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digipaul said the court cannot be a "blind spectator" to the denial of a proper opportunity of hearing, even where the proceedings are time-barred.
Uploading Show Cause Notice on 'Additional Notices' Tab Ineffective, Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title : Anil Kumar vs. Sales Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.(C) 843/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 87
The Delhi High Court, on 21 January 2026, remanded a matter back to the Proper Officer, noting that uploading a show cause notice under the 'Additional Notices' tab was not a valid service. A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside the demand order, allowing the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and avail a personal hearing.
Case Title : MS Kanushi Enterprises v. Union Of India & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15894/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 82
The Delhi High Court has expressed dissatisfaction over the Customs Department's failure to implement its earlier judgment directing the release of duty drawback amounts to the petitioners, despite the Supreme Court having dismissed the Department's special leave petition (SLP). A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was hearing a batch of writ petitions seeking implementation of the Court's judgment dated February 13, 2025.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Clarifies GST Treatment Of Amalgamations, Declines IGST Refund Relief To Alstom
Case Title : M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 11025 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 7
The Gujarat High Court on 23 January dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking IGST refunds on exports made prior to amalgamation, while authoritatively clarifying the statutory framework governing registration, refund claims and transfer of input tax credit in cases of corporate amalgamation under the GST regime.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the petitions filed by Alstom Transport India Limited, holding that both the taxpayer and the jurisdictional officers had failed to adhere to the mandate of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder while recording concern over the manner in which GST authorities were dealing with registration issues arising from amalgamations.
Rectification Of GST Returns Permissible Where There Is No Revenue Loss: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court held that inadvertent errors in GST returns can be rectified, provided there is no loss of revenue, and directed the authorities to facilitate amendment of GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B for the initial years of GST rollout.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by an authorized dealer of TATA Motors, permitting rectification of monthly returns electronically or manually. The Bench referred to the Bombay High Court's reasoning in Star Engineers, which applied a purposive interpretation of the GST law to allow rectification of inadvertent errors in returns.
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of GST Appeal Over 13-Day Delay
Case Title : R P Chemicals Through Partner Atulkumar Jivanlal vs. Superintendent CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15136 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 8
The Gujarat High Court recently set aside an appellate order rejecting a GST appeal solely on the ground of a 13-day delay, holding that the appellate authority had failed to exercise its discretion under the law despite having the power to condone the delay. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the delay fell within the additional 30-day condonable period available beyond the 90-day statutory limitation under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
GST Not Payable On Transfer Of Leasehold Rights: Gujarat High Court Directs Refund
Case Title : Aquaeva Chemtech Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 621 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 9
The Gujarat High Court, recently relying on its earlier ruling, reiterated that transferring or assigning leasehold rights in land is equivalent to the sale of land and therefore does not constitute a taxable 'supply' under the GST framework. A Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was hearing a petition filed by Aquaeva Chemtech Private Limited, which had challenged the withholding of its GST refund relating to the transfer of leasehold rights in an industrial plot.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title : Manoj Kumar Singh v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. (T) No. 7467 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(Jhar) 2
The Jharkhand High Court on 21 January, set aside an appellate order that denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a taxpayer, clarifying that credit cannot be denied solely for filing returns beyond the original deadline if subsequent statutory amendments expressly allow it. In a case where the taxpayer claimed ITC for FY 2018-19, the Court noted that once Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 was inserted, registered persons became entitled to claim ITC for past financial years provided their returns were filed within the extended timeline of 30 November 2021. Appellate authorities must reconsider claims in light of this amendment and related CBIC clarifications.
Karnataka HC
Services For Private Railway Sidings Are Exempt From Tax: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. P.J.B. Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 12 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 11
The Karnataka High Court on 8 January held that services rendered for the construction of private railway sidings are eligible for service tax exemption. A Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind was hearing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru East Commissionerate, challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Kerala HC
Tax Authorities Must Return Title Deed Given As Security Or Certify Its Loss: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s Bash-P-International v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 30631 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 15
The Kerala High Court has clarified that where an assessee furnishes an original title deed to the tax Department as security, the authorities are duty-bound either to trace and return the document or to formally certify that it has been irretrievably lost. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., by a judgment delivered on 16 January, was deciding a writ petition filed by M/s Bash-P-International, a partnership firm earlier registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
Two-Year GST Refund Limitation Starts From Date Of Correct Payment: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Pushpagiri Medical Society v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 40664 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 17
Earlier this month, the Kerala High Court held that the two-year limitation period under the GST law to claim refunds begins from the date on which tax is paid under the correct head, and not from the date of an earlier mistaken payment. The ruling was delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while allowing a writ petition filed by Pushpagiri Medical Society, a registered non-profit organisation running a hospital and medical education institutions in Kerala.
Exemption Claims Under Kerala Building Tax Act Must Be Referred To Government: Kerala High Court
Case Title : M/s VPK Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 20284 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 18
The Kerala High Court on 14 January held that when a claim for exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act is raised, statutory authorities are obliged to refer the matter to the State Government and cannot independently reject the claim while completing assessment proceedings. The ruling was delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. while allowing a writ petition filed by M/s VPK Motors Pvt. Ltd., which runs a Toyota dealership at Kannur, challenging the levy of building tax on its premises housing a showroom, workshop, and service centre.
Madras HC
Imported Parts Alone Don't Justify Higher Sales Tax On Car Audio Systems: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. Nippon Audiotronix Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C.(R).No.5 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 31
The Madras High Court has ruled, in a dispute over the tax treatment of Kenwood-branded car audio systems, that the use of imported components does not by itself make the finished product an imported good, holding that “the parts do not, by themselves, constitute a complete car audio system”. A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar was deciding whether Nippon Audiotronix's car audio systems were taxable at 12.5 percent as domestic goods or at 20 percent as imported products under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
Case Title : Fone Zone NXT v. Commissioner of DGST & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 888/2026 & Connected Matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 81
The Delhi High Court has refused to restore a trader's cancelled GST registration, observing that it is “very easy to blame a professional” after the firm attributed its failure to respond to tax notices to its Chartered Accountant. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Fone Zone NXT, a proprietorship firm dealing in mobile phones and allied accessories. The firm had challenged the cancellation of its GST registration and ex parte assessment orders passed by the Delhi GST authorities.
New Limitation Plea Without Records Not Maintainable Before CESTAT: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd. v. Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number : CMA No. 3435 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 33
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., holding that a plea on limitation cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting factual material on record. A Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice P. Dhanabal observed that limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be examined by a court or tribunal in the absence of necessary evidence.
'Ignoring Precedent Is Judicial Indiscipline': Madras High Court Restores Service Tax Refund
Case Title : Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : C.M.A. Nos.1453 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 35
The Madras High Court has reiterated that service tax paid under a mistake of law must be refunded and that such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation, while setting aside orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai that had denied a refund to a software services exporter. The Court said, “The Tribunal, by ignoring the precedents laid down by the higher Forums, passed the order, thereby it amounts to violation of the core principle of Judicial Discipline.”
Case Title : The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. Nos.19298
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 36
The Madras High Court recently held that customs duty on a vessel is fixed on the date of its import and cannot be reopened later merely because the vessel is converted from foreign-going to coastal run. The court said a later change in how the vessel is operated does not create a fresh tax liability. A bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the date of import is the only point that matters for determining liability under the customs law.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Directs GST Dept to Pay 6% Interest On IGST Refunds For Ocean Freight
Case Title : M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.11618 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 7
The Orissa High Court on 22 January directed the GST authorities to pay interest to M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, a fertilizer company on the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunded on ocean freight. It held that the tax had been collected without the authority of law and that interest must follow as a matter of restitution. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman allowed the company's writ petition challenging the rejection of its claim for interest on the refunded amount.
CESTAT
Local Iron Ore Transport Not Taxable As Cargo Handling Service: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Mata Dadhimati Transport v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.77325 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 34
On 9 January, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reiterated that that service tax cannot be levied on local transportation of iron ore by classifying it as a “Cargo Handling Service” when the activity is essentially one of transportation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by M/s Mata Dadhimati Transport and set aside the service tax demand and the equivalent penalty imposed on it under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise.
Service Tax Paid by Mistake Not Eligible For Suo Motu Adjustment: CESTAT Chennai In TVS Motor Case
Case Title : M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40198 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 39
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled against TVS Motor Company Ltd., holding that service tax paid under a mistaken belief of law cannot be adjusted suo motu against future service tax liability in the manner adopted by it. The ruling was delivered by Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., dismissing the appeal filed by TVS Motor against an order confirming a service tax demand of Rs 41.97 lakh along with applicable interest.
Johnson Lifts Secures ₹1.24 Crore Relief As CESTAT Chennai Upholds Elevator Parts Classification
Case Title : Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40713 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 37
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that lift and elevator parts imported by Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. were correctly classifiable as “parts suitable for use solely or principally with lifts and escalators” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8431, which attracts a lower rate of customs duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Ajit Kumar set aside the department's differential customs duty demand exceeding Rs. 1.24 crore, along with interest and penalties, while upholding the separate classification of door locks.
Raw Aluminium Cannot Be Reclassified As 'Motor Vehicle Parts' Based On End Use Alone: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Hanon Climate Systems India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD Patparganj and Other ICDs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51748 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 38
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently set aside the re-classification of raw aluminium articles imported from Korea and Thailand as auto-parts solely on the basis of end use. On 21 January 2026, a Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya rejected the Department's attempt to classify imported aluminium tubes, pipes, and profiles as 'parts of motor vehicles'. The Tribunal held that merely because the imported goods bore specific part numbers, they could not be considered suitable for use “solely” and “principally” in motor vehicles.
Marine Feed Mixed With Vegetable Protein Attracts Higher Customs Duty: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Grobest Feeds Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42455 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 40
On 22 January, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imports of marine feed mixed with vegetable protein attract higher customs duty as they are classifiable as formulated animal feed and not as simple fish or mollusc meal.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao upheld the reclassification of imported squid-based feed products under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2309 as preparations for animal feeding. The Tribunal held that the presence of substantial vegetable protein fundamentally altered the character of the goods, removing them from the category of "pure marine meal" which is eligible for concessional duty.
CESTAT Allows Service Tax Refund Claims of Nokia Solutions' Sriperumbudur SEZ Unit
Case Title : Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41109 to 41113 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 42
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to a refund of service tax paid on services approved for authorised operations in its Special Economic Zone unit. The appeal was decided by Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, who set aside the rejection of refund claims totalling Rs 46.20 lakh while upholding the denial of Rs 4,220 linked to invoices raised on the company's Gurgaon unit.
Tax Refund Must Be Determined By Nature of Service, Not Registration Mistake: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Dubond Infotech Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 12020 of 2015-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 43
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 23 January, set aside the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed by Dubond Infotech Private Limited, ruling that a clerical error in service tax registration cannot, by itself, defeat a refund claim for exported software development services.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh noted that the company had mistakenly obtained registration under "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval" (OIDAR) services instead of "Information Technology Software Services".
CESTAT Holds MRI Monitors Attract 18% IGST, Sets Aside 28% Levy On Wipro GE Healthcare Imports
Case Title : Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87743 TO 87745 & 87753 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 45
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Mumbai has set aside customs orders against Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. that had upheld the levy of 28% integrated GST on medical monitors imported for use with MRI systems, holding that the higher tax could not be sustained. A Bench of Technical Member C.J. Mathew and Judicial Member Ajay Sharma found that customs authorities had wrongly rejected Wipro GE's request to amend the bills of entry and had continued to assess the goods at 28% IGST despite the applicable tariff entry and rate notification providing for a lower rate.
Barreled Bitumen Cost Included In Excise Valuation: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Nayara Energy Limited vs. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Rajkot
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 13948 of 2013- DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (AHM) 44
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 January upheld the inclusion of the cost of barrels for bitumen sold from depots. It clarified that barrelled bitumen is different from bulk clearances from a refinery and therefore, the two cannot be treated the same. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh was examining whether the cost of barrels used for packing bitumen by Nayara Energy (formerly Essar Oil) formed part of the assessable value for levy of central excise duty.
GSTAT
Developer Not Liable For Profiteering When ITC Benefits Are Fully Passed to Buyers: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DGAP vs. Arkade Developers Private Limited
Case Number : NAPA/131/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 3
On 20 January, the Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Arkade Developers, holding that no contravention of Section 171 arises when Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits are fully passed on to homebuyers. The Tribunal noted that the developer had not only fully passed on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to homebuyers but also slightly exceeded the statutory requirement.
GSTAT Delhi Says Pan Realtors Not Liable For Profiteering On Flat Sales After Occupancy Certificate
Case Title : DGAP v. PAN Realtors Private Limited
Case Number : NAPA/125/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 4
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has held that, in this case, no issue of profiteering arose in respect of residential units sold after the issuance of an occupancy certificate in Pan Realtors Private Limited's Noida project while closing a buyer's complaint relating to alleged input tax credit benefits under GST. The tribunal, however, closed the complaint after recording the developer's undertaking to refund the computed profiteered amount of over Rs 40 thousand for units sold before the occupancy certificate.
GSTAT Delhi Confirms ₹19.3 Lakh Profiteering Liability on Park Avenue After-Shave Distributor
Case Title : DGAP vs. Shree Sai Kripa Marketing & JK Helene Curtis Ltd (Raymond)
Case Number : NAPA/1/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 5
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 27 January directed sellers of Park Avenue After-Shave Lotion to deposit Rs. 19,32,446 into the Consumer Welfare Fund, confirming the revised profiteering allegations against them. The ruling comes after a major correction in the profiteering calculations, following the identification of duplication of invoices, which had caused the original financial demand to be overstated.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CBIC Revises Gold Tariff Values, No Change in Edible Oils, Brass Scrap & Areca Nuts
In a notification dated 22 January 2026, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has updated tariff values for gold while keeping tariff values unchanged for edible oils, all types of brass scrap, silver, and areca nuts. The notifications stated that from 23 January 2026 tariff rates are effective at USD 1,567 per 10 g for gold and USD 2,950 per kg for silver.
GSTN Issues Advisory On RSP-Based Valuation For Tobacco Products
Ahead of the rollout of the Retail Sale Price (RSP)–based valuation mechanism from 1 February 2026, the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory for taxpayers. The advisory provides guidance on reporting taxable value and tax liability under the RSP-based valuation in e-invoices, e-way bills, GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, and the Invoice Furnishing Facility (IFF).
'Godaan' Movie To Be Tax-Free In Chhattisgarh, CM Unveils Trailer
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai on Tuesday announced that Godaan, described as the first feature film centered on the cow, will be made tax-free in the state. The announcement was made while he unveiled the trailer of the film at the Chief Minister's residence office in Raipur. In a statement issued on X, the Chhattisgarh Chief Minister's Office congratulated the makers and cast of Godaan and said the state government remained committed to the protection and promotion of cattle. The Chief Minister said cinema could serve as an effective medium to convey social and cultural messages to a wider audience.
Economic Survey 2025-26: GST 2.0 Delivers Stable Revenue As Transactions Rise
The Economic Survey 2025–26 said GST revenues remained steady following rate rationalisation under the GST 2.0 framework. Gross GST collections during April to December 2025 stood at Rs 17.4 lakh crore, registering a year-on-year growth of 6.7 percent, the Survey noted. It added that GST revenue growth broadly tracked nominal GDP growth during the period.
DGFT Revises Bulk Drug Policy, PEN-G, Amoxycillin Subject To Minimum Import Price Till Jan 2027
In a Notification dated 29 January 2026, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has revised the import policy for certain bulk drugs, including Penicillin G-Potassium (PEN-G) and its salts. According to the notification, specific antibiotics such as PEN-G, Amoxycillin and its salts, and 6-APA have been moved from the 'Free' category to the 'Restricted' category.
Cigarettes Turn Costlier From Today As 40% Sin Tax Kicks In
Cigarettes will get 40% costlier from today, as higher taxes on tobacco products notified by the Union government take effect from February 1, 2026. The Ministry of Finance had issued the notification on December 31, 2025, replacing the GST compensation cess with a 40 per cent sin tax under the Central Excise (Amendment) Bill, 2025. While the notification was issued earlier, the revised levy becomes applicable from today.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Sharp Cuts In TCS On Overseas Travel, Education And Medical Remittances
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday also proposed significant reductions in tax collection at source (TCS) rates on overseas travel and certain foreign remittances. Presenting the direct tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a cut in TCS on foreign tour packages. “I propose to reduce TCS rate on the sale of overseas tour programme packages from the current 5 per cent and 20 per cent to 2 per cent, without any stipulation of amount,” she said.
Budget 2026-27 Proposes Withdrawal Of Select Customs Exemptions, Tariff Simplification
The Union Budget 2026–27 proposed changes to India's customs duty framework aimed at simplifying the tariff structure and reducing long-standing distortions. Presenting her indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To further simplify the tariff structure, support domestic manufacturing, promote export competitiveness, and correct inversion in duty, I propose to remove certain long-continuing customs duty exemptions on items which are being manufactured in India or where imports are negligible.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 presented on Sunday proposed customs duty relief for personal imports and medicines used in the treatment of serious illnesses. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “To rationalise the customs duty structure for goods imported for personal use, I propose to reduce the tariff rate on all dutiable goods imported for personal use from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.”
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed changes to customs rules governing baggage clearance during international travel to address passenger concerns and align duty-free allowances with current travel patterns. Presenting the indirect tax proposals, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said, “I propose to revise provisions governing baggage clearance during international travel to address genuine concerns of passengers.”
Budget Proposes Hike In Securities Transaction Tax On Futures And Options
The Union Budget 2026–27 on Sunday proposed an increase in Securities Transaction Tax (STT) on futures and options trades. Presenting the Budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced higher STT rates for derivative transactions. “I propose to raise the STT on Futures to 0.05 per cent from the present 0.02 per cent,” she said.
Union Budget 2026: FM Proposes Rollout Of Customs Integrated System (CIS) In 2 Years
Presenting the Union Budget 2026, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the rollout of a new Customs Integrated System to overhaul customs processes. “I propose that a Customs Integrated System will be rolled out in two years as a single, integrated and scalable platform for all customs processes,” Sitharaman said.
AIDC Levy On Aircraft Tyres To Continue At 0.5 Percent After Budget 2026-27
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, as part of the Union Budget 2026–27, clarified that new pneumatic tyres of rubber used on aircraft will continue to attract Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) at 0.5%. The clarification applies to goods falling under tariff item 4011 30 00. AIDC is a customs duty levied under Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2021. It is charged on notified imported goods.
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a key change in the GST treatment of certain cross-border services, especially those provided by Indian intermediaries to overseas clients. Under the current GST regime, the place of supply for cross-border services is governed by Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. This section applies when either the supplier or the recipient of a service is located outside India.
Finance Bill, 2026 Proposes Enabling GST Appellate Tribunal To Hear Advance Ruling Appeals
The Finance Bill, 2026, proposes a change in the GST appellate framework that will allow the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear a limited category of advance ruling appeals. GSTAT will continue to function as the appellate forum for regular GST disputes such as classification, valuation, and input tax credit. The proposed change does not alter this role.