LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 31 - September 06, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
9 Sept 2026 10:02 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Union of India v. M/s Sahil Enterprises & Anr.
Case Number : D No. 33460/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 286
Today, the Supreme Court issued notice in the Union of India's challenge to a Tripura High Court judgment which allowed a purchaser to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) despite the supplier having failed to deposit the GST collected from the purchaser with the Government. A Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran also stayed the operation of the High Court's 6 January 2026 judgment. The case concerns the interpretation of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires, among other conditions for availing ITC, that the tax charged on the supply must have actually been paid to the Government.
Supreme Court Says Delay In Tax Deposit Not 'Failure To Pay', Quashes Penalty On Saudi Airlines
Case Title : M/s Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 289
On 1 September, the Supreme Court held that the penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for “failure to pay” Foreign Travel Tax cannot be imposed merely because the tax was deposited after the prescribed deadline. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed an appeal filed by Saudi Arabian Airlines against a Bombay High Court judgment which upheld a penalty imposed on the airline for delayed deposit of Foreign Travel Tax (FTT). The judges held: “Failure to pay would mean non-payment. 'Failure to pay' would not mean and cannot be equated with 'delay in making payment'.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹425.28 Crore Customs Penalty Over Fake Citations, AI Hallucinations
Case Title : VIJAY GHANSHYAM GADIYA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Number : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15605/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 290
The Supreme Court has set aside a customs penalty of ₹425.28 crore against a diamond trader after finding that the adjudicating authority had relied on non-existent judgments and fake citations. It also found that legal propositions had been wrongly attributed to existing judgments, which the Court said appeared to be a “hallucination of AI”. A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside the Gujarat High Court's January 20, 2026, order that had dismissed Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya's challenge to the penalty.
Case Title : SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 030419 - / 2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal against the Delhi High Court's order holding that a GST adjudicating authority is not bound to seek additional documents or clarifications from a taxpayer before passing an order merely because it finds the material already furnished insufficient. The case arose from a plea by Sodexo India Services Private Limited challenging the GST adjudication order.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 38052 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 480
On 28 August, the Bombay High Court held that a taxpayer cannot be denied refund of the GST pre-deposit corresponding to a tax demand that has already been set aside, merely because it intends to challenge the remaining demand before the GST Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed IBM India Pvt. Ltd.'s petition challenging the rejection of its claim for refund of Rs. 3.14 crore.
Different Financial Years Cannot Be Clubbed In One Section 73 Show Cause Notice: Bombay High Court
Case Title : M/s Mehadia & Sons C & F Division v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-II & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 484
The Bombay High Court on 28 August reiterated that demands for different financial years cannot be clubbed in a single show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). A Division Bench of Justices Anil L. Pansare and Nivedita P. Mehta held that the statutory scheme treats each financial year as a separate tax period for assessment and recovery, with separate due dates and limitation periods. It therefore held that different financial years cannot be consolidated into a single proceeding under Section 73.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Pleas Against GST Order Covering 629 Firms In Fake Invoice Case
Case Title : M/S Vleadit & Anr v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12148/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 903
The Delhi High Court on 21 August declined to entertain petitions challenging an adjudication order passed against 629 firms and individuals in connection with an alleged large-scale fake invoice racket, holding that disputed factual issues concerning their individual roles should be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain relegated the petitioners to the statutory remedy of appeal, holding that whether their replies to the Show Cause Notice were duly considered and what role they played in the transactions required examination by the Appellate Authority.
Customs Broker Has Right To Cross-Examine Witnesses In Licence Revocation Inquiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title : M/S Vogue Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case Number : CUSAA 63/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 907
On 1 September, the Delhi High Court held that a Customs Broker is entitled to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon in proceedings for revocation of its licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain upheld the remand of the revocation proceedings for fresh adjudication after granting Vogue Logistics Pvt. Ltd. an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Delhi High Court Finds No Natural Justice Violation In Customs Case After Four Missed Hearings
Case Title : Shakti Mehta & Ors. v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11539/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 909
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging a Customs order on the ground that Petitioners were denied a personal hearing, holding that they had been given repeated and adequate opportunities, which they failed to avail. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that adjournments were granted as an indulgence rather than as a right, and that Petitioners were afforded four opportunities of personal hearing between September and December 2024.
Case Title : Irfan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16386/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 911
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a 116-gram gold bar seized by Customs in December 2020, noting that the petitioner remained “inactive for several years” and approached the Court only in 2025. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that Petitioner was aware of the seizure but did not take any steps in respect of it for several years.
Mere Natural Justice Violation Claim Cannot Bypass Customs Appeal Remedy: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Mohammad Nawab Khan Thro His Wife Fareeeda Begum v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 18202/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 912
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a mere assertion of violation of principles of natural justice cannot, by itself, justify bypassing the statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while declining to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of a 117-gram gold bar by Customs authorities.
Case Title : Mohd Khalid v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16945/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 913
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of a separate written show cause notice does not, by itself, justify the release of goods detained by Customs. This is particularly so where the Department asserts that oral proceedings were undertaken at the time of interception and remains willing to afford the passenger a personal hearing The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars weighing 166 grams, which were detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport in December 2024.
Case Title : M.M. Ceramics & Ferro Alloys v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10535/2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 914
The Delhi High Court has held that the dispute resolution mechanism under the India-ASEAN trade agreement cannot bar Customs authorities from initiating proceedings under the Customs Act 1962, observing that the relevant treaty provision has not been incorporated into Indian domestic law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by M.M. Ceramics & Ferro Alloys challenging Customs proceedings relating to its claim of preferential customs duty on Malaysian tin ingots.
Case Title : Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs The Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs Air Cargo Complex Import & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10387/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 915
The Delhi High Court has held that a pre-insolvency customs claim against Jaiprakash Associates Limited stood extinguished after the Customs Department failed to submit it during the company's insolvency process and the resolution plan was approved. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed, “The failure of the Respondents (Customs) to submit their claim cannot…operate to the prejudice of the Corporate Debtor or the Successful Resolution Applicant. The IBC does not contemplate that a creditor who fails to participate in the CIRP acquires a superior position after its conclusion.”
No Automatic Release Of Seized Goods Where Customs Claims Oral Show Cause Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Saiyyada Khatoon vs Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 102/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 918
The Delhi High Court has held that unconditional release of seized goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be ordered merely because no written show cause notice was issued when the Customs Department specifically asserts that an oral show cause notice under Section 124(a) was issued. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition seeking release of a 100-gram gold bar seized from the petitioner at Delhi airport.
Case Title : Mohammad Junaid v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 919
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation of a 117-gram gold bar, holding that the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing a revision application before the Central Government under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed the petition of an Indian national who was intercepted at the Delhi airport after he crossed the Green Channel.
Case Title : Mohd Arif v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 6066/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 920
The Delhi High Court has observed that a passenger's waiver of a written show cause notice under the Customs Act cannot be considered in isolation to defeat confiscation, where the record also contains the passenger's own acknowledgment that an oral show cause notice had been received. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order directing absolute confiscation of two gold bars weighing 233 grams and valued at ₹13,07,412.
Case Title : Ministry Of Railways v. The Assessing Authority & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13676/2006
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 921
The Delhi High Court has set aside assessment orders and revisional orders involving aggregate sales tax demands of ₹533,79,21,617. The demands concerned rolling stock financed through the Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC). The court held that the authorities had wrongly treated the entire rolling stock financed through IRFC as having first belonged to the Railways. They had then treated it as having been sold by the Railways to IRFC.
Delhi High Court Refuses Release Of Customs-Detained Gold Over Disputed Coercion Claim
Case Title : Mohammad Umar v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 42/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 924
The Delhi High Court has held that a disputed claim that a passenger was coerced into signing documents admitting non-declaration of goods cannot, by itself, justify their release in writ jurisdiction. The court cannot accept such a version over contemporaneous documents bearing the passenger's signatures when it raises disputed questions of fact. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking release of two gold bars, which had been detained from Petitioner at Delhi airport after crossing the Green Channel.
ITC Blocked By GST Authorities Cannot Be Treated As Appeal Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Spherion Solutions Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3418/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 925
The Delhi High Court on 3 September held that input tax credit (ITC) blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules cannot be treated as payment of the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing a GST appeal. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition filed by Spherion Solutions Private Limited seeking permission to utilise Rs. 3,33,257 from its blocked Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.
Customs Seizure Cannot Be Set Aside Merely For Want Of Written Show-Cause Notice Delhi High Court
Case Title : Najir v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 16994/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 926
The Delhi High Court on 2 September held that the absence of a separate written show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself warrant unconditional release of goods seized by Customs, particularly where the Department claims that an oral show-cause notice was issued within the statutory period. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain disposed of a petition by Najir seeking unconditional release of three gold bars bearing the marking “1 Ounce Fine Gold 999.9”, which Customs had seized from the petitioner at Delhi airport upon his return from Saudi Arabia.
Case Title : Nahid Zakiya Through Spa Mohammad Uzair v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1037/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 927
The Delhi High Court on 3 September held that reliance on Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects a person's property rights, cannot by itself entitle a person to unconditional release of property when statutory proceedings under the Customs law are underway. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Nahid Zakiya through SPA Mohammad Uzair seeking the return of a 58-gram gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport.
Delhi High Court Refuses Writ Against Gold Confiscation, Cites Disputed Facts And Revision Remedy
Case Title : Fahim Ahmad v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17561/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 930
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the absolute confiscation by Customs authorities, holding that disputes concerning the alleged oral show-cause notice and waiver of personal hearing involve disputed questions of fact which should be examined by the statutory revisional authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain observed that although the existence of an alternative remedy does not completely bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, the present case involved factual disputes concerning what transpired between the petitioner and Customs officials.
Case Title : Iqrar Ali v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 111/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 929
The Delhi High Court on 2 September held that expiry of the initial six-month period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not by itself entitle a person to release of seized goods where the period has been validly extended and a Show Cause Notice is issued within the extended period. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a petition seeking release of nine gold bars and one gold chain detained by Customs authorities at Delhi airport from the petitioner.
Case Title : Neha v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12210/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 931
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Central government has failed to curb the practice of obtaining fraudulent GST registrations by misusing the PAN and Aadhaar details of innocent citizens, despite nearly nine years having elapsed since the enforcement of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while considering petitions alleging fraudulent GST registrations obtained using the PAN and Aadhaar numbers of persons who had no connection with the businesses concerned.
Gujarat HC
Customs Cannot Indefinitely Detain Goods Through Panchnama To Reset Limitation: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Pranavbhai Ambalal Patel v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6295 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 121
The Gujarat High Court on 25 August held that Customs authorities cannot use a Panchnama to indefinitely restrain goods and later issue a formal seizure order to bypass the time limits under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling that the limitation period starts from the date of detention if the mandatory order under the provision was not passed. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that the vehicle belonging to petitioner Pranavbhai Ambalal Patel had effectively remained under restraint for more than a year, even though the Department had not passed the requisite seizure order.
Case Title : Ushaben Kalpeshbhai Patni, Legal Heir (Wife) of Deceased Kalpeshbhai Ramubhai Patni v. State Tax Officer, Ghatak 5 (Ahmedabad)
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 8255 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 122
The Gujarat High Court has held that GST proceedings initiated against a deceased taxpayer cannot be sustained when the legal heir was neither made a noticee nor given a meaningful opportunity to respond, quashing proceedings initiated against a proprietor who had died several years earlier. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a petition filed by Ushaben Kalpeshbhai Patni, the wife of the deceased proprietor, Kalpeshbhai Ramubhai Patni, and quashed the consequential demand order passed against him.
Karnataka HC
Future Commercial Use Cannot Determine Stamp Duty Value: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Disthi Vishal Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 2023 (GM-ST/RN)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 152
Recently, the Karnataka High Court quashed orders demanding differential stamp duty on a 37-acre land parcel in Hassan district, holding that authorities cannot determine the value of land merely on the basis of an alleged intention to use it for resort or commercial purposes, unless such intended use is established through relevant documents. Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed a writ petition filed by Disthi Vishal Pvt. Ltd. and another, challenging orders passed by the District Registrar and the Regional Commissioner under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Adjustment Of Excess Excise Duty Payment Towards Dues Of Another Firm
Case Title : The State of Karnataka v. Manoji
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO.100084 OF 2025 (EXCISE)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 153
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the adjustment of an excess excise duty payment made towards the dues of one firm against the outstanding liability of another firm under the State's Karasamadhana-IV Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Justice Lalitha Kanneganti and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the State's appeal against the order of the Single Judge directing the authorities to adjust the excess amount of ₹43.23 lakh paid towards the liability of Nagalingaswami Trading Company (NTC) against the dues of M/s Torgal Group (TG).
Madras HC
GST Cannot Be Levied On Penalty Imposed On TASMAC Employee For Stock Shortage: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Managing Director v. K.R. Subramanian
Case Number : W.A(MD)No.679 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 248
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 14 August held that GST cannot be levied on a penalty imposed on an employee for shortage of liquor stock, observing that such a penalty arising from an employer-employee relationship cannot, by itself, be treated as a supply of service under GST law. A Division Bench comprising Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar made the observation while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC).
Madras High Court Upholds GST Authorities' Power To Block Electronic Credit Ledger For Tax Recovery
Case Title : M/s. Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner Coimbatore - I Division
Case Number : WP No. 32816 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 252
The Madras High Court on 25 August held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities can block an electronic credit ledger, including through a negative blocking entry, to recover tax dues, even where recovery proceedings arising from the assessment order have been stayed. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the ruling while disposing of a writ petition filed by Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions against the Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore-I Division.
Airport Entry-Ticket Licensee Liable For Service Tax Only From June 1, 2007: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Managing Director v. Airport Director
Case Number : OSA No. 321 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 254
The Madras High Court has ruled that an airport entry-ticket licensee was liable to pay service tax only from June 1, 2007, and not for the earlier period. The court observed that the law was amended from that date to specifically bring the renting of immovable property within the service tax net. For the period before June 1, 2007, it noted that the Delhi High Court had ruled that service tax did not apply to the rental/licence fee in question.
Patna HC
Patna High Court Says Permanent GST Registration Cancellation May Cause 'Civil Death' To Business
Case Title : M/s Super Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No. 6588 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 23
The Patna High Court on 28 August observed that permanent cancellation of GST registration may virtually result in the “civil death” of a business by preventing the taxpayer from carrying on business, while granting relief to Super Enterprises, whose GST registration was cancelled for failure to file returns for six months. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya noted that Section 75(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requires the authorities to provide an effective opportunity of hearing before taking an adverse decision.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : M/s Saini Multispecialty Hospital v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12376/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 40
The Rajasthan High Court on 5 August declined to interfere with labour cess recovery proceedings against Saini Multispecialty Hospital, holding that payment of Rs. 45,000 to a municipal body could not by itself discharge the hospital's statutory liability under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar at the Jaipur Bench held that the cess had to be assessed and deposited with the authority prescribed under the statutory scheme and dismissed the hospital's challenge to the recovery proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Notice And ₹3.13 Lakh Demand Against Mayur Timber
Case Title : M/s Mayur Timber v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14232/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 41
The Rajasthan High Court on 11 August set aside an unsigned Goods and Services Tax (GST) show-cause notice and consequential demand of over Rs. 3.13 lakh raised against Mayur Timber, along with interest of Rs. 4,26,002 and an equivalent penalty. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar held that mere generation of a document on the GST portal or allotment of a reference number cannot replace the mandatory requirement of authentication under Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017.
CESTAT
Case Title : Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 85678
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 537
The Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 August allowed four appeals filed by Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. against rejection of its refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that the Revenue cannot deny refund of accumulated CENVAT credit by treating services as not export of services when it had not initiated proceedings to recover service tax on those very services.
Case Title : BASF Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41001 of 2017 & 40212 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 538
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 31 August held that excess service tax paid by a taxpayer can be adjusted against tax liability arising in later months or quarters and is not restricted to the immediately succeeding month or quarter. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed appeals filed by BASF Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd., relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in South India Aluminium Company v. CGST & Central Excise, Chennai, which had settled the issue.
Case Title : Imperial Fibres Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.-Mundra
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 10121 & 10122 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 539
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 31 August held that the Customs Department cannot deny preferential tariff benefit or invoke the extended limitation period against an importer merely on the suspicion that Certificates of Origin are fraudulent, without completing the prescribed verification process and establishing the importer's involvement in the alleged fraud. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed appeals filed by Imperial Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Varun Goyal against a Customs duty demand arising from imports of polyester knitted fabrics.
Sugar Syrup With 80% Sugar Used To Make Exempt Biscuits Is Excisable: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : ETC Agro Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Gandhinagar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 11396 of 2013-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 540
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad on 31 August held that sugar syrup containing 80% sugar by weight is marketable and liable to excise duty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh partly allowed the appeal filed by ETC Agro Processing (India) Pvt. Ltd. against a demand of around Rs.49.68 lakh, while remanding the matter for verification and grant of eligible CENVAT credit on sugar used to manufacture the syrup.
CESTAT New Delhi Bars Extended Limitation Where RCM Liability Is Revenue-Neutral
Case Title : M/s Kaps Advertising v. Joint Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51741 of 2025 (SM)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 541
On 3 September, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) observed that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where service tax payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) would have been available as CENVAT credit, as such a revenue-neutral situation does not establish an intention to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed an appeal filed by Kaps Advertising, restricting the service tax demand to the normal period of limitation and setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹1.80 Crore SAD Demand Against Emerson Process Management
Case Title : Amit Paithankar & Anr. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), JNCH & connected appeal
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 85270, 85271 & 85291 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 542
On 2 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside a Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) demand of Rs.1,79,95,057 against Emerson Process Management (India) Private Limited for the period from April 2012 to July 2013. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts or mala fide intention, as the company's claim for SAD exemption was based on the understanding prevailing among the concerned government authorities.
CESTAT Sets Aside ₹93.75 Lakh Demand Against HCL, Upholds BPO Works Contract Credit Denial
Case Title : HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70612 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 543
On 1 September, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because input services were received at premises not included in the taxpayer's centralised registration, while upholding denial of credit on works contract services used for construction or setting up of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) branches. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava partly allowed HCL Technologies Ltd.'s appeal against a demand of Rs. 2.06 crore, comprising Rs. 93.75 lakh in CENVAT credit on services received at its Chennai, Hyderabad and Gurgaon premises before their inclusion in the centralised registration and Rs. 1.12 crore on works contract services used at its BPO premises.
Case Title : Shri G. Janardhanan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 21090 & 21091 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 544
On 3 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, held that composite works contracts involving both supply of materials and services cannot be subjected to service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service (MMRS). A Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside service tax demands against Kerala Public Works Department contractor G. Janardhanan for repair, reconstruction and maintenance works relating to irrigation canals and allowed his appeals.
CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Customs Duty Exemption For Reliance's Plant Used In Petroleum Operations
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada v. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd.
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.: 30057 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 545
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad has upheld customs duty exemption for Reliance Industries Ltd. on its import of a Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant used in petroleum operations. It ruled that the benefit could not be denied merely because the plant was classified under a different tariff heading from Heading 8430, which was mentioned alongside the relevant entry in the exemption list.
Case Title : Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Noida
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 71114 of 2018 and Excise Appeal No. 70395 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 546
The Allahabad CESTAT has ruled that a manufacturer cannot automatically rely on a declared sale price for excise valuation merely because the buyer is an independent party when the price is substantially and continuously below the cost of manufacture. The tribunal made the finding in appeals filed by Eveready Industries India Ltd. over the valuation of batteries supplied to two torch manufacturers.