LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 10 - August 16, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
17 Aug 2026 5:27 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
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.
HIGH COURTS
Calcutta HC
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.
Delhi HC
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.
Gujarat HC
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.
Karnataka HC
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.
Kerala HC
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.
Madras HC
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."
Punjab & Haryana HC
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(PNH) 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.
Telangana HC
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.
CESTAT
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.