LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 16 - March 22, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
23 March 2026 6:22 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : ZOOMCAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8920-8921/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 113
The Supreme Court has recently permitted Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to file a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders arising from proceedings for the financial year 2019–20, after the Rajasthan High Court disposed of its writ petitions without granting liberty to pursue the appellate remedy. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with special leave petitions challenging the Rajasthan High Court's orders, which had declined to entertain Zoomcar's challenge to GST notifications extending the time limit for passing assessment orders and had disposed of the writ petitions along with the challenge to the consequent assessment orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024.
Writ Petition Against GST Show Cause Notice Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case Title : M/S TRILLION LEAD FACTORY PRIVATE LTD VS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7101/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 118
The Supreme Court on 27 February dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Trillion Lead Factory Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the Telangana High Court's refusal to interfere with a show cause notice proposing cancellation of its GST registration. A Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held: “It is trite law that no writ lies against the issuance of a show cause notice, and such a writ petition would not be maintainable.”
Case Title : Union of India & Anr. v. Ruhi Siraj Makda
Case Number : Diary No. 8941/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 120
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that directed the grant of an IGST refund to an exporter despite errors in GST returns. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while hearing the matter, refused to interfere with the High Court's decision but kept open the question regarding the applicability of the proviso to Rule 96 of the CGST Rules for consideration in an appropriate case.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Once Goods Found Of Indian Origin, Customs Seizure Arbitrary And Malafide: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : J.K. Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Smt. Jasvinderkaur Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. and Uttarakhand Lko. and 2 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 258 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 26
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has expressed surprise at the seizure and detention of areca nuts by the customs authority on the ground that they were of foreign origin despite one lab test indicating Indian origin and a government laboratory test failing to determine their origin. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla was dealing with a batch of writ petitions involving seizure of the goods by customs authorities and held: “In such a situation, when the goods have been identified as goods of Indian origin, the entire exercise of the customs authorities in seizing the goods and thereafter continuing to detain the said goods appears to be not just arbitrary but also malafide. It is astonishing to note that the goods were examined once again, that too, from a Government laboratory that could not ascertain the origin of the goods. Even after the second report has come to light, the authorities have continued to detain the goods without having any basis in law to do so.”
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Order Denying IGST Refund To Lubrizol, Orders Fresh Consideration
Case Title : Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 987 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 145
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of IGST on export of services, holding that the authority failed to properly consider the petitioner's contentions and the nature of the agreements between the parties. A Division Bench comprising Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Lubrizol Advance Materials India Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the rejection of its refund claim of Rs 56,11,885 for July 2024 on the ground that the services provided were “intermediary services” and not export of services.
Case Title : Tata Motors Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra
Case Number : SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 81 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 149
The Bombay High Court has declined to answer questions of law on whether the hire-purchase premium collected on the sale of vehicles forms part of taxable turnover under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, in references arising from a dispute involving Tata Motors Ltd. after the company stated that it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. The court clarified that although a reference made by the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot formally be withdrawn at the instance of a party, the High Court can dispose of the reference by declining to answer the questions when the parties do not wish to pursue the matter.
Case Title : Bi-Chem India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 7331 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 150
The Bombay High Court has recently directed the Revenue to immediately restore the GST registration of Bi-Chem India Pvt. Ltd. after the department informed the court during the hearing that the suspension would be withdrawn and the registration made operational. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was dealing with a writ petition filed by the company questioning the suspension of its GST registration, along with a show cause notice dated February 18, 2026, a recovery notice, and the provisional attachment of its bank accounts issued earlier that month.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General v. M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 55/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 267
The Delhi High Court has upheld a CESTAT order restoring an entity's customs broker licence, holding that action based on a vague show cause notice cannot be sustained in law. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs challenging the CESTAT order which had set aside the revocation of the respondent's Customs Broker licence.
Case Title : Gautam Jain v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15864/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 273
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a jeweller challenging the penalty imposed on him in a gold smuggling case, holding that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality with a co-accused. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the revisional authority, which had imposed a penalty of ₹16 lakh on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title : Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 5581/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 274
The Delhi High Court has held that show cause notices (SCNs) under the GST regime can cover multiple financial years, both under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul clarified that its earlier ruling in Ambika Traders is not confined to cases involving fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Case Title : Sandeep Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs ICD
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3207/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 279
The Delhi High Court has recently declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash a show cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the petitioner's plea regarding limitation must be decided by the adjudicating authority. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Once the petitioner has submitted his explanation on the issue of limitation based on the judgments referred above, it can be expected of the respondents to deal with the contentions of the petitioner.”
Case Title : Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service Tax
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3328/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 288
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations relating to non-supply of relied upon documents (RUDs) and other procedural lapses in GST proceedings are matters to be examined in statutory appeal and not in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul observed, “Mere dissatisfaction with the manner in which the adjudicating authority has dealt with the record cannot, by itself, furnish a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Deep International & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16799 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the seizure of imported consignments declared as “industrial oil," holding that the product was most akin to Automotive Diesel Fuel (ADF) / High Flash High Speed Diesel (HFHSD), which are restricted commodities importable only through State Trading Enterprises under the import policy. The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by importers, including Deep International (petitioner), challenging the seizure of consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To Export Units In Kandla SEZ From Cess Liability
Case Title : Esskay Niryat Corporation v. Union of India & Ors
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 2553 of 2026
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February, held that Esskay Niryat Corporation and RR Exports operating from the Kandla Special Economic Zone (SEZ), are protected from coercive action under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025, while the matter is pending before the Court. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while hearing petitions filed by the two units, granted interim relief by staying recovery steps and issued notice to the Union Government.
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside GST Order After Taxpayer's Request For Personal Hearing Was Ignored
Case Title : M/s K D Engineers v. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 16344 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 41
The Gujarat High Court has set aside an adjudication order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that failure to grant a personal hearing despite specific requests vitiates the proceedings. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi was dealing with a writ petition filed by K.D. Engineers challenging an order-in-original dated August 20, 2025, and a consequential demand notice.
Case Title : Atlas Dye Chem Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 1106 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 42
The Gujarat High Court has held that an amendment to a customs exemption notification under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme, which allowed installation of imported machinery in the importer's “factory or premises," will apply retrospectively, and exemption cannot be denied merely because the machinery was installed outside the factory. Allowing an importer's appeal, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the benefit earlier denied due to the absence of the word “premises” must be extended after the amendment made by substitution.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Medizen Labs Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Writ petition no. 5225 of 2026 (T-Res)
CITATION : 2025 LLBiz HC(KAR) 35
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte GST order passed against Medizen Labs Pvt. Ltd. after noting that the adjudicating authority issued the order without considering any reply from the taxpayer. The court observed that, in the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice before the matter is decided on merits. A single-judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing a writ petition filed by the bengaluru based company challenging an Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought refund of Rs 60,60,770, which had been recovered from its bank account pursuant to the impugned order.
Kerala HC
GST Show Cause Notice Cannot Proceed On Preconceived Conclusion Of Liability: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association (KSSBCMA) v. Intelligence Officer
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 9108 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 56
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice issued to the Kerala State Self-Financing B.Pharm College Management Association after finding that the notice was worded in a manner suggesting a pre-conceived conclusion on the petitioner's liability. The court held that a show cause notice can contain only a proposal based on the material on record and that a final conclusion can be reached only after considering the assessee's objections and documents.
Madras HC
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : CWP-19113-2024 (with CM-2828-CWP-2026)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 14
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 26 February set aside a show cause notice seeking GST on tariff petition and licence fees collected by the Haryana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, holding that these fees arise from statutory regulatory functions and are not in the course of business. A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice, observing: “Learned counsel for respondents points out that review has been preferred against order dated…. However, it is conceded that there is no stay in the matter; in fact, notice has also not been issued therein.”
Rajasthan HC
CESTAT
Case Title : Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40141 to 40143/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 111
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax cannot be levied on reimbursement of advertisement and sales promotion expenses received by Panasonic Home Appliances India Co. Ltd. from its foreign group company under a cost-sharing arrangement, as such payments do not constitute consideration for any taxable service. The bench, comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V., observed that although the parties are distinct legal entities capable of a service provider–service recipient relationship, no taxable service was rendered in the present case and the amounts received merely represented reimbursement of jointly incurred expenses, which cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service.
Chennai CESTAT Allows Duty Exemption For JSW Steel, Rules Belated Reports Cannot Override Notice
Case Title : M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 42447 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 112
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 10 March held that customs authorities cannot deny exemption by relying on test reports that were not part of the Show Cause Notice, and that adjudication cannot travel beyond the allegations contained in the notice. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao set aside the demand raised against JSW Steel Ltd., holding that the imported coal satisfied the exemption conditions at the time of import.
Case Title : The Regional Manager Tobacco Board v. Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 251 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 113
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that statutory fees collected by the Tobacco Board for conducting auctions of Virginia tobacco cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services and, therefore, are not liable to service tax. The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi, who observed that the Tobacco Board was performing statutory and regulatory functions under the governing legislation and the fees collected in that capacity could not be treated as consideration for a taxable service.
Land Component In Country Club Membership Fee Cannot Be Included For Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : Country Club (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Secunderabad - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30232 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 114
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of land included in composite membership packages offered by Country Club (India) Ltd (now known as Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd) (appellant) cannot be included in the taxable value for the purpose of levying service tax under the category of “club or association service". The bench consists of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi stated that "The value of land sold/ transferred to members of the appellant's club through their sister concern, as verified by CA based on financial records, bank statements, other relevant documents and certified accordingly, would be accepted as value of land and the same will be excluded from the gross value for re-computation of tax liability, if any, keeping in view the payments of service tax already made. While computing the service tax liability net of land value, the cumtax benefit will also be extended along with eligible credit lying in the balance and used for payment of service tax."
Case Title : Bank of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 409 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 115
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that reversal of CENVAT credit cannot exceed the proportionate credit attributable to exempt supplies, while granting relief to Bank of India and remanding the matter for recomputation of the credit liable to be reversed. A coram of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that “we agree with the submission of the appellant that the demand for reversal of credit should not exceed the proportionate credit based on the exempt supply made by them. Therefore, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of quantifying the proportionate credit liable to be reversed by the appellant, along with applicable interest.”
Absence Of Check-Post Stamps Not Proof Of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : M/s Zemini Marketing Company v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Kolhapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 86026 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 117
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a mere absence of check-post stamps on transportation documents cannot create a presumption that goods were not transported. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban observed: ".....that only for the reason that the check-post documents were not produced or were incomplete, it does not mean that the goods were not transported as the documents like Bilty, statements of suppliers, supporting supply of goods to Shri Malu and M/s SVPMIPL are available on record. Hence, only for the reason that Form No. 402 showing transportation of goods was not presented, it cannot be assumed that the goods were not received by Shri Rajendra Malu or M/s SVPMIPL."
Transportation Of Mining Rejects To Dumping Yard Qualifies For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.42545 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 116
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that transportation of waste and reject materials arising during mining operations qualifies as an 'input service', and accordingly, CENVAT credit is allowed to Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that had denied credit on services relating to loading and transportation of limestone rejects from captive mines to dumping yards.
Case Title : Dell International Services India Private Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40646 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 118
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of over Rs 82 crore against Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd., holding that laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from its SEZ unit to customers in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) cannot be treated as “dutiable goods” or “personal imports” under the Customs Tariff Act. The bench, consisting of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, was dealing with the issue of classification of laptops, desktops, and monitors cleared from an SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area and whether such supplies could be treated as 'personal imports' liable to duty under Heading 9804 of the Customs Tariff Act.
Case Title : Super Transports (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41763/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 119
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that in a works contract involving tyre retreading, where VAT had been discharged on 70% of the contract value under the prescribed method, service tax could be levied only on the remaining 30%, observing that the same portion cannot be subjected to both levies. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Madurai-based Super Transports (P) Ltd.
Non-Charging Of Service Tax From Client Cannot Justify Non-Payment: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Ashima Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax – Ahmedabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 12328 of 2014-SM
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 120
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged by the taxpayer from its client cannot be a valid basis to claim bona fide belief, while also holding that commission agents, other than those dealing in agricultural produce, became liable to service tax from 9 July 2004. A coram of Judicial Member Somesh Arora observed, "The statutory provisions are clear and leave no scope for interpretation. Non-payment of tax on the ground that the same was not charged cannot be considered a valid basis for claiming any bona fide belief." The bench also noted that "the only commission agents who remained exempted were those engaged in relation to the sale and purchase of agricultural produce."
VCES Immunity Bars Fresh Service Tax Demand After Discharge Certificate Is Issued: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. ARS Transport v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41417/2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 122
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that once a taxpayer declares dues under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) and obtains a discharge certificate, the Department cannot issue a fresh notice for the same period on the same issue. A Bench of Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. held that a declaration accepted under the scheme attains finality and grants immunity from further proceedings.
BCCI Subsidies To Cricket Associations Not Taxable As Service Consideration: Kolkata CESTAT
Case Title : The Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata v. M/s. The Cricket Association of Bengal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75455 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 121
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 March held that subsidies received by cricket associations from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are not liable to service tax, as they are in the nature of grants-in-aid and not consideration for any taxable service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that there was no quid pro quo between the parties and that the amounts were provided to promote the game of cricket.
Case Title : MRF Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40512 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 123
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a demand of over Rs. 221 crore raised against MRF Limited, holding that tyres, tubes and flaps tied with plastic straps do not constitute “pre-packaged commodities” under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and therefore cannot be subjected to MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that plastic strapping used merely for transport safety does not amount to “packaging” and therefore does not trigger the requirement of declaring retail sale price under the Legal Metrology law.
Case Title : M/s. DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, GST Commissionerate- South Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55716 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 124
The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the appeal filed by DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., owner of Hotel Hilton Garden Inn, Saket, and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 39.64 lakh along with penalties, holding that salaries paid to the general manager and department heads of the hotel cannot be treated as consideration for taxable services. The dispute arose from an investigation linked to Hilton group entities, wherein the department alleged that the appellant had structured its arrangement in a manner that excluded salary payments to key managerial personnel, such as the general manager and department heads, from the taxable “operator fee” paid to Hilton's overseas entities.
Case Title : Forrester Research India Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi East
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 51243 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 125
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently held that services such as common area maintenance, vending machine operations, and travel agent services qualify as “input services” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in the case of a company providing taxable services including manpower supply, rent-a-cab, business auxiliary, and legal consultancy services. The tribunal held that such services have an indirect nexus with the provision of output services, and CENVAT credit cannot be denied on that ground.
Authority For Advance Ruling
GST On Iced Tea 5%, Beverages Without Fruit Pulp Or Juice 40%: West Bengal AAR Clarifies
Case Title : Sage Organics Private Limited
Case Number : WBAAR 30 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that non-alcoholic beverages not containing fruit pulp or fruit juice fall under other non-alcoholic beverages and attract GST at 20% CGST and 20% SGST, while iced tea preparations and tea extracts are classifiable as extracts, essences and concentrates of tea, and preparations based on such extracts, attracting GST at 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST. A coram of Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX, Shafeeq S and Senior Joint Commissioner, SGST Jaydip Kumar Chakrabarti said, “In our considered view, the non-alcoholic beverages as specified by the applicant will come under serial no. 2 of Schedule III and as such will be taxed @ 20% CGST + 20% SGST.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GSTAT Rajkot Bench Starts Functioning
The GST Appellate Tribunal's Rajkot bench has begun functioning, with authorities issuing a trade notice on March 18 to inform businesses and tax professionals that the long-awaited forum is now operational in Gujarat. The tribunal is working from its office at the RK Iconic building on 150 Feet Ring Road in Rajkot. Officials said appeals can be filed through the GSTAT online portal, which was rolled out last year, and a toll-free helpline has also been provided to help users facing difficulty while filing cases.