LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 24 - August 30, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
31 Aug 2026 11:59 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Says Extended GST Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Mechanically, Quashes G.R. Infra Notice
Case Title : M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 281
The Supreme Court on 19 August held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be invoked merely by mechanically using expressions such as “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression of facts” in a show cause notice. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by G.R. Infra Projects Limited, Ratlam, observing that the show cause notice itself must specify the allegations and circumstances which led the assessing officer to infer fraud, concealment or suppression of facts.
Supreme Court Holds Port Trust Liable For Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods After Custodian Approval
Case Title : Union of India & Others v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 4477 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 283
The Supreme Court on 25 August upheld the validity of a notification approving the Mumbai Port Trust as a custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to approve a person or entity as custodian of imported goods pending their clearance. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manmohan held that the Commissioner of Customs was justified in approving the Trust as a custodian, and set aside the Bombay High Court's finding that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue the notification.
Supreme Court Sets Aside GST Notice Against Tata Steel, Says 'Suppression' Must Have Factual Basis
Case Title : M/s Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16859 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 284
The Supreme Court has set aside a GST show cause notice issued to Tata Steel Limited and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 26 December 2025, holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), merely by using the words “suppression of facts” without setting out the foundational facts supporting the allegation. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that where the Department seeks to invoke the extended limitation period on the grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the show cause notice must itself disclose the facts forming the basis for such an allegation.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Future Revenue Share Can Be Consideration For Stamp Duty On Development Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Star Developers Through Partners v. State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Revenue & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 11127 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 476
The Bombay High Court on 24 August held that a landowner's agreed share in future sale proceeds can be treated as consideration for determining stamp duty on a development agreement, even if the exact amount is not known when the agreement is executed. Justice Amit Borkar dismissed Star Developers' petition challenging the demand for deficit stamp duty, holding that the 42% revenue share agreed to be paid to the landowner could be considered while determining the market value of the transaction under Section 2(na) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
Case Title : M/s Sahyog Homes Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 6437 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 477
On Friday, 28 August, a Single-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 must be completed within six years, or whether it is sufficient for the proceedings to be initiated within that period. Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by Sahyog Homes Ltd. and another, challenging an order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority directing them to pay Rs. 2.31 crore towards deficit stamp duty.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Upholds Reassessment Against Chirania Projects, Orders Personal Hearing
Case Title : Chirania Projects Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 23325 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 202
The Calcutta High Court on 18 August upheld reassessment proceedings initiated against Chirania Projects Private Limited for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, while directing the Assessing Officer to provide the company an opportunity of personal hearing during the reassessment. Justice Smita Das De passed the order while hearing the company's writ petition challenging the 30 June 2025 order under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148.
Delhi HC
Lending Customs Broker Licence And Dongle For Money Prohibited Under CBLR: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Pardeep Kumar Prashar v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)
Case Number : CUSAA 75/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 865
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a Customs Broker cannot lend his licence and dongle to another person for monetary consideration, as such conduct amounts to impermissible transfer of the licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain upheld the revocation of the appellant, Pardeep Kumar Prashar's Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of his security deposit of Rs. 75,000 and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000.
Judicial Review Cannot Re-Appreciate Settlement Commission Evidence: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/s Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 8723/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 866
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that while exercising judicial review over orders of the Settlement Commission, it cannot re-appreciate evidence considered by the Commission or substitute its own assessment for that of the Commission. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Jindal Lifestyle Ltd. challenging the rejection of a claim for adjustment of Rs. 31.93 lakh towards reversal of CENVAT credit against Central Excise duty liability.
Case Title : M/s Nitco Ltd. and Anr. v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission
Case Number : W.P.(C) 976/2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 867
The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a taxpayer who voluntarily chooses to settle a dispute before the Settlement Commission cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the underlying show cause notice (SCN) through a writ petition. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the writ petition filed by Nitco Ltd. challenging an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission.
Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Employee Over Undeposited TDS
Case Title : Shravan Rustagi v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16067/2025 & CM APPL. 65785/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 884
The Delhi High Court on 21 August quashed a tax demand raised against a taxpayer after finding that his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted from his salary. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the petition and directed the Revenue to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months. The dispute arose from an intimation dated 23 September 2025 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2011-12.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : M/s TPJ Carriers v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 15838 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 148
The Karnataka High Court held that Goods and Services Tax authorities must proceed with the sale of seized goods under Section 129(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 after issuing due notice if the owner of the goods does not avail the available appellate remedy. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad disposed of a writ petition filed by TPJ Carriers, a transporter, and directed the State GST authorities to bring the seized goods to sale by issuing a public notice and serving notice on the owner of the goods at the earliest and, in any event, within five weeks.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Entry Tax Levy On Hydraulic Oil Dismisses Wipro's Challenge
Case Title : Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 581 OF 2023 (TAX)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 149
The Karnataka High Court on 11 August dismissed seven revision petitions filed by Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. challenging the levy of entry tax on Hydraulic Oil brought into Karnataka for use in the manufacture of Hydraulic Cylinders. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's orders sustaining the levy under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act).
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Holds MRF Eligible For Tax Exemption On 'Compound Rubber'
Case Title : M/s MRF Limited v. State of Kerala
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 42200 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 171
The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that MRF Limited is entitled to tax exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 for “compound rubber” manufactured by the company. It stated exemption cannot be denied by treating the product as covered by the negative list introduced through S.R.O. No. 38/1998 Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed MRF's petition challenging the State Level Committee on Sales Tax Exemption's decision, which had denied the company exemption in respect of compound rubber.
Madras HC
Six-Month Limit Does Not Apply To Currency Seized As Evidence Under Customs Act: Madras High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Vikram Jain
Case Number : W.A.No.1855 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 242
The Madras High Court on 10 August held that the six-month time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing a show-cause notice does not apply to Indian currency treated as a “thing” under Section 110(3) when Customs officers retain it as material evidence during an investigation. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed a writ appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs against an order directing the release of Rs. 21.55 lakh recovered from the premises of Vikram Jain, proprietor of Globe Opticals.
ITC Blockage Cannot Continue Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Metal Trade Incorporation v. State Tax Officer
Case Number : WP No. 35866 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 244
The Madras High Court on 21 August held that a restriction on the use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rules cannot continue beyond one year. Justice S. Raveekumar directed the authorities to unblock the ITC of Metal Trade Incorporation, which had remained blocked for more than two-and-a-half years. He held: “the restriction was imposed on 27.01.2023 and more than 2 ½ years have passed. In view of the same, the restrictions on the blockage ceased to have effect upon expiry of one year and therefore, cannot be continued. Just because the third respondent had passed the impugned communication on 13.09.2023, the blocking of ITC under Section 86A cannot continue beyond one year.”
Madras High Court Quashes ₹4.56 Crore Customs Duty Demand Against Shipping Forwarder
Case Title : C. Solomon Selvaraj v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 16050 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 246
The Madras High Court on 19 August set aside a Rs. 4.56 crore differential customs duty demand, along with interest and penalties, imposed on the proprietor of The Sea Shipping Forwarders. A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that the Customs Department failed to record a specific finding, supported by cogent evidence, that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the concealed goods or knowingly facilitated their concealment and attempted duty evasion.
Patna HC
VAT Penalty Refund Cannot Be Denied Over Filing Before Re-Designated Authority: Patna High Court
Case Title : M/s S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 9083 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 22
The Patna High Court on 21 August held that the State Tax Department cannot deny a dealer's refund of a penalty under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 merely because the refund application was filed before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax instead of the re-designated Additional Commissioner of State Tax. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kumar Sinha and Vikash Kumar observed that such a technical objection cannot defeat a legitimate refund claim, and allowed a writ petition filed by S and H Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd., seeking refund of Rs. 1,69,017.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Punjab And Haryana High Court Orders Release Of Roasted Areca Nuts Detained Since November 2024
Case Title : M/s. Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana v. Union of India and others
Case Number : CWP-14871-2026, with connected matters including CWP-28682-2024 and CWP-17983-2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 48
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 17 August directed the release of imported roasted areca nut consignments that had remained detained in Customs bonded warehouses since November 2024. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor found that the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi had classified the goods as “dried” rather than “roasted” based only on their physical appearance and colour, without applying the scientific parameters prescribed in its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Upholds Excise Duty On Scrap Of CENVAT-Credited Capital Goods
Case Title : Shree Cement Ltd. v Commissioner (CGST) and Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 34
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 35
The Rajasthan High Court on 3 August held that excise duty is payable when capital goods on which CENVAT credit was availed are subsequently cleared as waste or scrap, even if the scrap does not fall under a specific tariff entry. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed an appeal filed by Shree Cement Ltd. against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order upholding the excise duty demand on the clearance of such scrap.
Case Title : M/s Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10055/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 36
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on annuity payments received by road construction companies under concession agreements with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), holding that such deferred payments for works contract services cannot claim exemption merely because they are paid as annuities. A Division Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Nagaur Mukundgarh Highways Pvt. Ltd., challenging CBIC Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17 June 2021 and the consequential levy of GST on annuity payments received under its concession agreement with NHAI.
Rajasthan High Court Says Customs Cannot Recover Excess Drawback Without Reassessment
Case Title : M/s Bhati & Company v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19673/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 38
The Rajasthan High Court on 12 August held that Customs authorities cannot directly invoke Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover alleged excess drawback without first reassessing the exporter's self-assessment under Section 17 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justices Munnuri Laxman and Sangeeta Sharma allowed writ petitions filed by Bhati & Company and Latiyal Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. and granted the Customs authorities liberty to proceed under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, if permissible in law.
Rajasthan High Court Says Supplier's Tax Payment Mandatory For ITC, Upholds Recovery From Buyer
Case Title : M/s Shree Karni Electrovision v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4266/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 39
The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August held that actual payment of tax by the supplier to the Government is a mandatory condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and that the credit can be recovered from the purchaser if the supplier fails to pay the corresponding tax. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar dismissed a writ petition filed by Shree Karni Electrovision, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and an order dated 24 November 2022 directing recovery of ITC.
CESTAT
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties On DLF Projects For Service Tax Dispute Over Ongoing Projects
Case Title : M/s DLF Projects Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54780 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)526
On 21 August, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a taxpayer's bona fide belief on the applicability of a service tax valuation scheme to ongoing projects can constitute reasonable cause for non-payment of differential tax, warranting waiver of penalties. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside the penalties imposed on DLF Projects Ltd. under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, while upholding the service tax and interest liability already discharged by the company.
12% Interest Payable On Redemption Fine Deposits From Date Of Deposit: CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Title : M/s Hindustan Distributors v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 60490 and 60519 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA)527
The Chandigarh Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that interest at 12% per annum is payable on redemption fine amounts deposited by an importer for securing release of goods, from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, holding that such interest is compensatory in nature. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.S. Garg allowed two appeals filed by Hindustan Distributors seeking interest on refunds of Rs. 18 lakh and Rs. 27 lakh representing redemption fines deposited for release of imported goods and directed payment of 12% interest on the redemption fine amounts.
Vodafone Idea's Five-Year Delay Cannot Curtail Statutory Interest On Pre-Deposit: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Vodafone Idea Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51163 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 528
On 24 August, the New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed Vodafone Idea Ltd.'s appeal against the denial of interest on its service tax pre-deposit. A Bench comprising Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that interest under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act is payable from the date of deposit until the date of actual refund, regardless of the reason for the delay. He held: “As per Section 35FF interest has to be paid from the date of payment of the amount as pre-deposit till the date of its refund. The intervening period may be short or long and may have been due to any reason whatsoever.”
DDA's Statutory Status Does Not Exempt Its Commercial Leasing From Service Tax: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Delhi Development Authority v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-II & Anr.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50278 of 2017 and 50191 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 529
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August held that the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) statutory status does not exempt its commercial leasing activities from Service Tax. Also, receipts from leasing Government or Nazul land against lease premium, ground rent or other considerations are taxable when they are not compulsory statutory levies. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed two appeals filed by DDA against Service Tax demands for the periods from 2007-08 to 2014-15, upholding the original adjudicating authority's exclusion of the demand relating to renting of vacant land before 1 July 2010.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Holds ₹54 Lakh Recovery Against Panasonic Time-Barred, Faults Department's Inaction
Case Title : Panasonic Life Solutions India Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Gandhidham
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11111 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 530
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 24 August set aside recovery of Rs. 54,00,034 from Panasonic Life Solutions India, holding that the Department's show cause notice issued nearly six years after the credit was taken was barred by limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh held that recovery of irregular or excess credit under Notification No. 39/2001-CE is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Natural Rubber Latex Toy Balloons Classifiable As 'Toys', Not As 'Rubber Articles': CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Vee Vee Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 55805 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 531
On 24 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi held that toy balloons made of natural rubber latex are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9503 as “toys” and not under Chapter 40 as “rubber products.” Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Revenue's classification of the goods imported by Vee Vee Enterprises, JMD Impex and V.K. Import Export Co. stating that specific functional classification prevails over a general material-based classification.
Arbitrary Turnover Projections Cannot Support Best-Judgment Service Tax Assessment: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi (East)
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51848 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 532
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 21 August held that best-judgment assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot rest on arbitrary percentage growth or earlier-year turnover when actual financial records are available. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside an order confirming Service Tax and CENVAT credit liabilities of about Rs. 60 crore against Twenty Four Guarding Private Limited and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Hyderabad Says Sample Purchase Orders Cannot Establish All Sales Were FOR Sales
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur-GST v. M/s Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 30482 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 533
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that the Revenue cannot presume that all sales were on FOR (Free on Road) basis merely from sample purchase orders relied upon in the show cause notice. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed the Department's appeal against Eco-Care Building Products Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the dropping of the substantial portion of the differential Central Excise duty demand for the period from November 2012 to March 2017.
Customs Cannot Reclassify Fabrics Without Laboratory Test To Determine Composition: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Elvance Overseas LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76577 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 534
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata held that Customs authorities cannot change the classification of imported fabrics merely on the basis of their description without conducting a laboratory test to determine their actual composition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside a Rs. 39.12 lakh differential customs duty demand against Elvance Overseas LLP, holding that the Department could not treat fabrics described as “Polyester Warp Knitted Fabrics” as 100% synthetic without scientific evidence establishing their fibre composition.
STPI Charges For SOFTEX Certification And NOCs Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Software Technology Park of India v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 20226 of 2014 & 30531 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 535
On 25 August, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad held that charges collected by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) from software exporters for certifying SOFTEX forms, issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and providing related assistance constitute consideration for taxable Business Support Services and are liable to Service Tax. Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar and Judicial Member Angad Prasad dismissed two appeals filed by STPI against Service Tax demands, including a demand of over Rs. 5.15 crore for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12, along with interest and penalties.
Mark-Up On Non-Taxable Ocean, Air Freight Can't Be Taxed As Business Support Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41329 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 536
On 28 August, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be imposed on the mark-up earned by a freight forwarder on ocean or air freight when the underlying freight was not taxable during the relevant period. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that where the principal activity itself was outside the service tax net, the profit earned from that activity could not be separated and taxed as consideration for a distinct service.