LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 17 - August 23, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
25 Aug 2026 12:00 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Directs No Coercive Steps Against ITC In ₹11.59-Crore CST Demand
Case Title : ITC LTD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (LTU AND INT)
Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.28364-28369/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against ITC Ltd in its challenge to the Telangana High Court judgment that upheld a ₹11.59 crore commercial tax demand on its inter State stock transfers. The High Court on July 22, 2026 dismissed ITC's six writ petitions. It held that the transactions involving movement of goods from Andhra Pradesh to other States were, in substance inter State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore liable to tax.
Supreme Court Upholds TVS Motor's Referral Charges As Business Auxiliary Service, Sets Aside Penalty
Case Title : M/s TVS Motor Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 279
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that TVS Motor Company Limited was liable to pay service tax on referral charges it received from banks and an insurance company for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies, treating the charges as Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the penalty imposed on the company under Section 78 of the Finance Act, after finding that it had paid the entire service tax liability before the authorities issued the show-cause notice.
Supreme Court Dismisses GST Review Against Bharti Airtel And Others Over ITC On Telecom Towers
Case Title : COMMISSIONER, CGST APPEAL 1, DELHI ETC. Versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED ETC.
Case Number : DIARY NO(S). 10915/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 280
The Supreme Court on 19 August dismissed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department's review petition against Bharti Airtel Ltd, Indus Towers Ltd and Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, upholding the earlier dismissal of the Department's challenge to the Delhi High Court ruling on input tax credit (ITC) for telecom towers. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 8 August 2025, by which it had dismissed the Department's special leave petition against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 12 December 2024.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CESTAT Must Issue Fresh Notice If Bench Does Not Sit On Fixed Hearing Date: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Sampark Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 19 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 64
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where no bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal sits on the date fixed for hearing so that no judicial order comes to be passed fixing the next date, the Tribunal must issue a fresh notice to the party intimating the next date and place of hearing. It held that an appeal decided ex parte on such an unnotified date is decided without affording the appellant due opportunity of hearing.
Case Title : Nageen Traders and Molding India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Abdul Rahim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Dept. Govt. Lko. and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 989 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 66
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that a taxpayer who appeared before the tax officer and contested a show cause notice on merits and raised the objection of want of jurisdiction only after the penalty order went against him is hit by the doctrine of election and ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held, “We are conscious of the settled legal position that a question of jurisdiction can be raised before a Constitutional Court at any stage. However, the writ jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised by this Court in a judicious manner.”
GST Authority Finding In Assessment Proceedings May Affect Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Javed Akhtar v. Union of India
Case Number : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15340 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 67
The Allahabad High Court on 11 August held that where assessment proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 end in a finding that a taxpayer has not violated the law, such finding may have a bearing on criminal prosecution arising from the same allegations, even though the two proceedings are independent. Justice Vikram D. Chauhan made the observation while granting bail to Javed Akhtar, who was accused of fraudulently availing input tax credit, noting that no proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act had been initiated against him.
Bombay HC
Stamp Duty Cannot Be Levied On Final Conveyance If Documents Form One Transaction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 13655 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 468
The Bombay High Court on 20 August held that where several agreements and a subsequent conveyance form part of one continuous property transaction, stamp authorities cannot treat the final conveyance as a fresh transaction and levy stamp duty again merely because the documents bear different names. Justice Amit Borkar quashed the demand of Rs. 2.60 crore raised against Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited towards alleged deficit stamp duty, along with the consequential penalty and other charges.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Using Another Broker's Credentials
Case Title : Goodwings Maritime Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case Number : CUSAA 67/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 837
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that it had consciously undertaken clearance-related activities using the credentials of another Customs Broker in relation to goods which were prohibited for import. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the consent or knowledge of the Customs Broker whose credentials were used could not authorise another broker to undertake Customs Broker functions using those credentials.
Case Title : Liberty General Insurance Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4526/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 838
The Delhi High Court has recently held that Central and State GST proceedings cannot be treated as being on the 'same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because both proceedings concern Input Tax Credit for the same financial year. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain said that determining whether proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities concern the same subject matter requires an examination of the nature and scope of the respective proceedings, the period involved, the allegations, transactions or ITC under scrutiny, liability sought to be determined and the material relied upon.
Delhi High Court To Decide Constitutional Validity Of Cess On Pan Masala Manufacturers
Case Title : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case Number : W.P.(C) 80/2024 and W.P.(C) 364/2024
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the levy of compensation cess on pan masala manufacturers under the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain has listed for final disposal two petitions filed by Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. and the Smokeless Tobacco Association challenging the levy of compensation cess on pan masala and its constitutional validity.
Case Title : Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) and connected matters
Case Number : CUSAA 89/2026 and batch
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 847
The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant cannot seek condonation of an inordinate delay by merely blaming their counsel for failing to communicate an order, especially when the litigant themselves remained inactive and made no enquiry about the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed three customs appeals challenging CESTAT 's refusal to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals against recovery and penalty order.
Case Title : Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Customs Authority for Advance Rulings & Anr
Case Number : CUSAA 43/2023 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 850
The Delhi High Court has held that the return of petroleum operations equipment from a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) pursuant to a fresh contract and a subsequent Essentiality Certificate (EC) constitutes a fresh import and not a re-import. The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that merely because the equipment was physically the same as that which had earlier been imported into India, it could not be treated as a re-import.
Delhi High Court Declines Common Adjudication Of Three Customs SCNs Despite Overlapping Evidence
Case Title : Zenlayer Networks India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7091/2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 851
The Delhi High Court has refused to order common adjudication of three show cause notices arising out of a single Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation, holding that although there was substantial overlap in the material relied upon by the Department, the notices had distinct subject matters and arose at different stages of the alleged transactions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain also declined to entertain challenges to the customs adjudication orders in writ jurisdiction, leaving the Petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Case Title: Parveen Kumar Jain v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Icd, Tkd, New Delhi and connected matters
Case no.: CUSAA 82/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that an importer, being the ultimate beneficiary of duty benefits, has the responsibility to verify the genuineness of duty credit scrips used for customs clearance. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that an importer cannot escape liability for forged or manipulated scrips by shifting the blame to its agent. The Court was dealing with a batch of six customs appeals and 41 writ petitions arising from an investigation into large-scale customs duty evasion through forged and manipulated duty credit scrips used by importers of paper and paper articles between 2011 and 2015.
Pending GST Fraud Case No Ground To Restrict Passport Renewal To Three Years: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Atul Modi v. Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence
CITATION : 2026 llbIZ HC (DEL) 860
The Delhi High Court on 20 August held that the pendency of a criminal case concerning alleged Goods and Services Tax fraud cannot justify restricting an accused person's passport renewal to three years when sufficient safeguards prevent him from leaving India without the Court's permission. Justice Saurabh Banerjee modified the trial court's order limiting Atul Modi's passport renewal to three years and directed that his passport be renewed for the regular term of ten years.
Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Fake GST Case Involving Misuse Of PAN Cards
Case Title : Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case Number : BAIL APPLN. 1632/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 862
The Delhi High Court on 20 August dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of creating fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) entities by allegedly misusing the Permanent Account Numbers (PAN) cards and other credentials of unsuspecting individuals. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that filing fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns by misusing the PANs and other credentials of innocent persons has serious consequences for victims and “tremendous ramifications” for the country's economy.
Gauhati HC
GST Officers Cannot Keep Tax Consultant's Office Sealed After Search Ends: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Sri Surendra Sharma v. The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number : WP(C)/3035/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 27
The Gauhati High Court on 10 August held that GST authorities cannot keep business premises sealed after completing a search when the owner had not denied them access. Justice Devashis Baruah directed the Assam GST Department to de-seal the office of Sri Surendra Sharma, a tax consultant operating under the name Sharma and Associates in Bokajan, Assam. The Bench held: “...the goods mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of Prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 can under no circumstances be said to be goods liable for confiscation as the things mentioned therein are laptops, desktops, 426 files, Refrigerators, Air conditioners, Inverter, Batteries etc which are not liable for confiscation under Section 120 of the Act of 2017 in the facts of the present case.”
Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Director, DRI v. The State of Nagaland
Case Number : Crl. Pet./18/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 28
The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had directed release of 570 bags of seized areca nuts on a Rs. 10 lakh bond and surety.
Gujarat HC
Merely Because No Income Was Booked, Business Expenses Cannot Be Disallowed: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad v. Gujarat State Road Development Corporation Limited
Case Number : R/Tax Appeal No. 277 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 115
The Gujarat High Court has recently ruled that expenses incurred on business projects cannot be disallowed merely because no income was booked against them for the relevant year. The court noted that if the Revenue's case was that no income had been booked, it had to determine whether the assessee had failed to account for that income or had not treated a particular receipt as income. “Merely because no income has been booked against the same, it would not result into disallowance of such expenses,” a division bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Orders Based On AI-Generated Non-Existent Case Laws
Case Title : Faiz Enterprise through Proprietor Mahetar Mahir Farukbhai v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 10123 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 117
The Gujarat High Court on 20 August quashed GST cancellation and appellate proceedings against Faiz Enterprise after finding that the State Tax Officer had relied exclusively on AI-generated case laws, including non-existent and irrelevant authorities. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that adjudication proceedings cannot be sustained where an authority relies on unverified AI-generated case laws instead of independently applying its mind to the law.
Karnataka HC
Transitioned CENVAT Credit Valid For Service Tax Appeal Pre-Deposit: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : M/s Shakti Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.1913 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 145
The Karnataka High Court on 4 August held that CENVAT credit transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime can be used to meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for a service tax appeal. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order rejecting a pre-deposit of Rs.79,77,301 made by debiting the Electronic Credit Ledger through Form GSTR-3B.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Advance Ruling On Kitchen Exhaust Hoods In Halton India's Case
Case Title : Halton India Private Limited v. Customs Authority
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 146
The Karnataka High Court on 6 August held that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings must examine material produced by an importer to determine whether kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans before deciding their tariff classification. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Authority's order dated 25 March 2026 after finding that material submitted by Halton India Pvt. Ltd. to establish that its imported exhaust hoods contain fans had not been considered.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Denies AVT McCormick's ₹49.54 Lakh Refund Claim Over Transitional ITC
Case Title : M/s AVT Mccormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 12964 OF 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 169
The Kerala High Court on 20 August held that a claim for refund of transitional input tax credit can be allowed only if the taxpayer establishes that the disputed credit stood in its Electronic Credit Ledger as on 1 July 2017. Justice Johnson John dismissed AVT McCormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petition challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, which had rejected its claim for refund of Rs. 49.54 lakh.
1% Construction Cess Only On Actual Construction Cost, Not Entire Contract Value: Kerala High Court
Case Title : D. Manoharan v. Union of India
Case Number : WA NO. 722 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 170
The Kerala High Court on 19 August held that 1% cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 can be levied only on the portion of a composite works contract attributable to the actual “cost of construction” and not on the entire contract value. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the ruling while disposing of a batch of 18 writ appeals filed by Class A registered work contractors of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA).
Madras HC
Service Tax | Madras High Court Says Refund Cannot Be Denied For Tax Paid Under Mistake Of Law
Case Title : The Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Ltd.
Case Number : C.M.A.No.3249 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 233
The Madras High Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order granting a refund of service tax paid on the supply of floating rigs, holding that the tax had been collected under an erroneous classification and could not be retained by the Government. A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala held that where service tax was paid due to a mistake of law, the Department could not deny a refund merely by relying on the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title : The Commissioner Of Customs Seaport Import Customs House 60 Rajaji Salai v. Msc Agency India P. Ltd.
Case Number : CMA No. 3675 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 234
The Madras High Court has recently restored a ₹90.15 lakh customs penalty imposed on MSC Agency India Pvt. Ltd. It found that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had dealt with the matter in a “very cavalier fashion”, despite the fact that the actual weight of goods unloaded from 150 containers was only 12.5% on average of the declared weight. “We find that the Tribunal failed to note that admittedly, 150 containers were shipped through the same shipping line and in all cases, the actual weight of goods unloaded was 12.5% [on an average] of the declared weight of the goods as per the Import General Manifest [IGM] and the Bills of Lading issued by the shipping line. ,” a Division Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala observed.
Madras High Court Directs Provisional Release Of 119 Machines, Rejects Retrospective Customs Rule
Case Title : M/s S.P. Associates v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 30536 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 239
The Madras High Court on 3 August held that a Customs notification that came into force after the shipment of imported goods could not be applied retrospectively to deny provisional release of the goods. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed the Customs authorities to consider the request of S.P. Associates, represented by its proprietor Yogendra Pratap, for provisional release of 119 used digital multifunction printing, copying and scanning machines imported under a Bill of Entry dated 17 July 2026.
CESTAT
Case Title : ECI BJCL JV v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 23371 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 509
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that a later statutory requirement of a 10% pre-deposit could not cure an earlier failure to comply with a 50% deposit condition imposed for pursuing an appeal. The amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, introduced a mandatory 10% pre-deposit from August 6, 2014. Since the appeal had already been dismissed on July 23, 2014 for failure to comply with the 50% condition, the later provision could not be used to cure the default.
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST v. Big C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30059 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 510
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that the Revenue cannot continue an appeal concerning a tax dispute after the assessee has settled it under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and received a discharge certificate covering the same matter and period. “Once the statutory authorities themselves accept the declaration and issue discharge certificate, the dispute reaches finality. Neither the assessee nor the Department can thereafter continue litigation relating to the same matter except in situations specifically carved out under the statute,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Metalloys Recycling Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 10441 of 2025-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 511
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has held that a 2022 notification prescribing a time limit for post-export conversion of Shipping Bills cannot be applied retrospectively to exports made before it came into force. A coram comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh ruled that the notification had no application to Metalloys Recycling Ltd.'s exports made between October 2019 and January 2022.
Case Title : Roy Global Trading Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76318 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 511
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the one-year time limit introduced in 2022 for converting Free Shipping Bills into EPCG Shipping Bills cannot be applied to exports made before the rule came into force. The bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the time limit under the 2022 notification has no retrospective effect. “Therefore, the time limit given therein cannot be applied for the cases where the exports have taken place during the earlier period,” the tribunal observed.
Export Duty Recovery Premature Before Finalisation Of Provisional Assessment: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : S.K. Brothers & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60035, 60036, 60041, 60042 and 60045 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 512
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹26.96 lakh export duty demand against S.K. Brothers. The court held that duty recovery proceedings cannot be initiated before a provisional assessment is finalised. The bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar found that the rice consignments were allowed to be exported on provisional assessment while samples were being tested to determine the nature of the rice.
Non-Manufacturer Must Deposit Excess Excise Duty Collected From Buyer: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Vihaan Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50243 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 513
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that a non-manufacturer who collects an amount representing excise duty in excess of the actual duty paid on goods must deposit the excess amount with the Central Government. A coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao made the ruling while dismissing Vihaan Enterprises' appeal against a ₹4.00 crore demand under the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest.
Aircraft 'Dry Lease' Taxable Where Lessor Retains Possession, Effective Control: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Orient Flight School v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40800 & 40801 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 514
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that merely calling an aircraft arrangement a “lease” does not mean that possession and effective control have been transferred to the other party. The tribunal found that Orient Flight School retained effective control and legal possession of the aircraft, and upheld the service tax levy on the arrangement as “Supply of Tangible Goods Service."
Case Title : The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs v. M/s Mars International India Pvt. Limited
Case Number : CEA No. 21 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL)62
The Telangana High Court has held that an appeal against a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order involving the taxability or classification of a service lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, and not before the High Court under Section 35G. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs against Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue had challenged a CESTAT order that set aside the service tax demand and penalty imposed on the company.
Separately Imported Laptop LCD Panels Are Flat Panel Displays, Not Computer Parts: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : N.R. Computech v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Export), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50135 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 515
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that separately imported laptop LCD panels are classifiable as flat panel display modules, rather than as parts or accessories of computers. The tribunal ruled that their intended use in laptops could not determine their classification when the goods retained their identity as separately presented display modules at the time of import.
Case Title : HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai Central
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85744/2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 516
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held on 17 August that service tax cannot be separately demanded on the interchange fee earned by a credit card issuing bank when the bank has already paid service tax on the entire Merchant Discount Rate (MDR). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside the service tax demands raised against HDFC Bank Ltd., along with interest and penalties, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. Citibank N.A.
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate v. Tata Communications Limited
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86009 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 August held that transponder bandwidth services received by Tata Communications Limited from foreign satellite service providers constitute telecommunication services and cannot be classified as Business Support Services (BSS). A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner's order dropping service tax demands against the company.
DBS Bank Indian Branch's ECB Services To Singapore Office Not 'Intermediary Services': CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : DBS Bank India Limited (Successor in Business of DBS Bank Limited) v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86069 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 517
On 17 August, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services provided by DBS Bank's Indian branch to its Singapore head office in connection with External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) cannot be treated as “intermediary services” for levy of service tax. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the Indian branch and DBS Bank Singapore were not two different persons but formed part of the same legal person. Therefore, activities carried out by the former for its head office could not be treated as services rendered by one person to another.
Foreign University Agent Not 'Intermediary' Without Tripartite Arrangement: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jalandhar v. M/s Trivedi Overseas Education Services
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60172 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)518
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 August held that an overseas education consultant cannot be treated as an “intermediary” merely because it acts as an agent of foreign universities and receives commission from them. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Trivedi Overseas Education Services, holding that where there is no tripartite arrangement and only one service is involved, merely describing the consultant as an “agent” does not make it an intermediary.
Deletion Of 'Setting Up' Does Not Bar CENVAT Credit On Plant-Setting Services: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 12756 of 2019-DB and 10075 of 2019-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 520
On 19 August, the Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because the expression “setting up” was omitted from the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, with effect from 1 April 2011. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partially allowed appeals filed by ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. against denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 78.18 lakh, along with interest and penalties, and remanded the matter for a service-wise examination of the disputed services.
Case Title : M/s Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30146 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 521
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that earth excavation and site formation work carried out by a sub-contractor for a government dam project qualified as a works contract service, even though the sub-contractor had not actually paid VAT. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that Capital Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to exemption from service tax under Serial No. 29(h) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST. The Tribunal consequently set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
Customs Act | CESTAT Chennai Holds S.117 Penalty Cannot Be Imposed Without Finding Of Contravention
Case Title : Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Preventive Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40052 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 522
The CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the ₹4 lakh penalty imposed on Dahnay Logistics Pvt. Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, finding that there was no established contravention warranting penalty. A Bench comprising Ajayan T.V., Member (Judicial) found that 100% examination of the cargo had revealed nothing objectionable and that the documents furnished by Dahnay Logistics were not found wanting. The Tribunal held that Section 117 could not be invoked mechanically and that a penalty required an established contravention or failure to comply with a statutory obligation.
Case Title : M/s. Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27989 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 523
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 20 August held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Rent-a-Cab, Outdoor Catering, Event Management, Cleaning and Photography services merely because they have no nexus with the output services. A Bench comprising Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., holding that credit on these services was allowable, while remanding other issues for verification.
NIL Value Invoices Can't Disguise Overburden Disposal As Sale To Avoid Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50873 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 524
On 20 August, the New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that lifting and disposal of mining overburden cannot be treated as a sale merely because invoices were issued, where the transaction involved no sale price or consideration. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao found that the arrangement between Northern Core Drilling Pvt. Ltd. and Jindal Saw Ltd. (JSL) involved the provision of a taxable service, upheld the service tax demand, and dismissed both appeals.
Service Tax Refund On Advance Cannot Be Time-Barred After Contract Termination: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Sry Real Estate Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75088 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 525
On 20 August, the Kolkata Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax paid on an advance is refundable where the contract is subsequently terminated without any service being provided, and that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to such a refund claim. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Sry Real Estate Private Limited against rejection of its service tax refund claim.