LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: July 13 - July 19, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
20 July 2026 7:18 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka's Retrospective Withdrawal Of Sales Tax Exemption For Imported Sugar
Case Title : Asia Sugar & Chemical Co., Davangere v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 235
The Supreme Court on Monday held that the Karnataka Legislature was competent to retrospectively withdraw the sales tax exemption available to imported sugar, but dealers who had acted under the earlier exemption regime cannot be subjected to penalties or retrospective interest. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale partly allowed the appeals arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Case Title : UNION OF INDIA vs SUNIL BIYANI
Case Number : DIARY NO. 34138/2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the Union of India's appeal questioning whether the Bombay High Court could grant Future Group non-executive director Sunil Biyani one week's protection from arrest after holding that his anticipatory bail plea was premature. The High Court had directed that if GST authorities subsequently authorise Biyani's arrest in an alleged ₹1,200 crore GST fraud probe, he should not be arrested for one week from the date the arrest order is communicated to him, allowing him time to seek legal remedies.
Supreme Court Directs FanMade11, 9Stacks To Pursue GST Appeal Instead Of Writ Petitions
Case Title : 9stacks Games vs Union Of India And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) No. 174/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 240
The Supreme Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by two online gaming companies, FanMade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and 9Stacks, challenging GST proceedings against them. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard both pleas. The court directed both companies to pursue the statutory remedies available under the GST law instead of invoking its writ jurisdiction.
HIGH COURTS
Calcutta HC
Customs Appeals Cannot Face Maintainability Challenge At Pre-Admission Stage: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Port v. M/s Greenpanel Industries Limited
Case Number : CUSTA 88 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 170
The Calcutta High Court on 10 July held that parties in customs appeals cannot challenge the maintainability of such appeals at the pre-admission stage, and must raise objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability only after the Court determines whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law. A Division Bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar rejected the respondents' request for a preliminary hearing on maintainability while hearing a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Order Uploaded A Day After Limitation Expired
Case Title : M. M. Motors & Anr. v. The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 8929 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 177
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a GST adjudication order even though its summary was uploaded on the common portal a day after the limitation period expired. The court held that the statutory limitation applies to the issuance of the order and not to its subsequent service. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed a writ petition filed by M. M. Motors and another challenging an adjudication order for the 2018–19 tax period. The petitioners argued that the adjudication order could not be treated as having been validly issued within the limitation period because its summary in Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded only after the prescribed period had expired.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9189/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 698
The Delhi High Court has held that an appellate order setting aside the rejection of a GST refund claim does not automatically entitle the assessee to an unconditional refund, nor does it bar tax authorities from examining the claim afresh on other legally permissible grounds. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by M/s Karamsar Poultry Appliances, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹3.44 lakh, which it claimed arose from an appellate order passed in its favour.
Case Title : Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. UoI & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9153/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 703
The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not obliged to call for additional documents or clarifications from a business merely because it finds the material placed on record to be insufficient to determine tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by Sodexo India, challenging a GST demand of around ₹8.75 crore. The Court rejected Sodexo's contention that the adjudicating authority ought to have sought further documents before passing the impugned order under Section 74 of the GST Act.
Case Title : Abdul Samad v. Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9182/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 706
The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of gold brought into India from Dubai without declaration, observing that the petitioner's experience as an international traveller showed that he was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goods A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, which had held that the petitioner attempted to import substantial quantities of gold jewellery and biscuits without making the mandatory declaration.
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Rejects Hawkins Cookers' Plea To Compute VAT On Reduced Sale Price
Case Title : Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number : Revn.Pet./1/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 21
The Gauhati High Court has held that Hawkins Cookers Ltd. must pay the balance 8.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on the original sale price of pressure cookers after an earlier ruling held that the products attracted VAT at 12.5% before 2010 and not 4% as claimed by the company. Dismissing six revision petitions, the court rejected Hawkins' contention that the original sale consideration should be treated as inclusive of 12.5% VAT while computing the additional tax liability. The controversy was confined to the manner of computing the differential VAT after an earlier ruling had already settled that pressure cookers attracted VAT at 12.5% prior to 2010.
Karnataka HC
No GST Payable On Machinery Returned For Testing Without Fresh Consideration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : State of Karnataka v. AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Private Limited
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1390 OF 2024 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 111
The Karnataka High Court held on 25 June that a company does not incur GST liability when it returns machinery to a seller for testing without any fresh consideration, as the movement does not amount to a taxable supply. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order reducing the penalty imposed on AAM India Manufacturing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. to Rs.25,000, while directing the Department to refund the remaining amount deposited by the company.
Karnataka High Court Remands Quikr's ₹1.77 Crore Stamp Duty Dispute Over NCLT-Approved Amalgamation
Case Title : M/s Quikr India Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 15998 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 112
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order directing Quikr India Private Limited, which operates the online classifieds platform Quikr, to pay an additional ₹1.77 crore as stamp duty on a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-approved scheme of amalgamation. The matter has been remitted to the District Registrar for fresh consideration. Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that, for the purpose of levying stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the NCLT's order approving the amalgamation is the relevant "instrument."
Case Title : M/s India Heritage Foundation v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 113
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a taxpayer cannot seek a lower VAT rate during reassessment proceedings without first filing a revised return under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, and dismissed India Heritage Foundation, Bengaluru's revision petition seeking to reduce the VAT rate on iron and steel used in a works contract from 12.5% to 4%. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K relied on its earlier decision in Nandi Constructions v. State of Karnataka and held that, since the Foundation had not filed a revised return under Section 35(4) of the KVAT Act (which permits a dealer to correct errors by filing a revised return), it could not raise the claim for a reduced VAT rate for the first time during reassessment proceedings.
Case Title : M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Karnataka Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 192 OF 2022 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 115
The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that a person who is neither the applicant nor the concerned tax authority in an advance ruling proceeding cannot challenge the ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such rulings are binding only on the parties to the proceeding. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind dismissed Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (BMRCL) writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), holding that BMRCL had no locus standi to question an advance ruling passed in proceedings to which it was not a party.
Case Title : M/s R.R. Gold Palace Private Limited & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number : STA No. 3 of 2023 c/w STA Nos. 11 of 2022, 12 of 2022, 2 of 2025, 5 of 2025 and 7 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax authorities cannot keep suo motu revision proceedings under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act pending indefinitely after initiating them within the statutory four-year period. While the authority validly initiates revision by calling for records within four years of the order proposed to be revised, the final revisional order must also be passed within a reasonable time, the court ruled.
Karnataka High Court Holds CESTAT Must Decide Limitation Plea Before Remanding Excise Matter
Case Title : Lotus Printers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III Commissionerate
Case Number : CEA No. 17 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 120
The Karnataka High Court on 2 July held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) must decide a specifically pleaded limitation objection before remanding an excise dispute for adjudication on merits, as accepting the limitation plea could make further proceedings unnecessary. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. disposed of the appeal filed by Lotus Printers Private Limited and directed CESTAT to decide the limitation issue while keeping its remand order on merits intact.
Case Title : Sri C. Girish, M/s Jai Gurudev Road Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Zone-II), Bengaluru
Case Number : STA No. 7 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 121
The Karnataka High Court on 15 July held that surrender of a transit pass under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act does not conclusively establish genuine interstate movement of goods or prevent authorities from initiating penalty proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao dismissed an appeal filed by Sri C. Girish, proprietor of Jai Gurudev Road Carriers, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act (which provides for penalty where goods are transported in circumstances indicating possible tax evasion).
Madras HC
Case Title : M/s. Canon India Private Limited v. State Tax Officer/Group – VI
Case Number : W.P.Nos.20935/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 175
The Madras High Court has held that a taxpayer must first respond to a GST show cause notice before challenging the invocation of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law (which deals with tax demands involving alleged fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement). Justice C. Saravanan dismissed Canon India Pvt. Ltd.'s writ petitions challenging the GST DRC-01 show cause notices but granted the company 30 days to file detailed replies.
Madras High Court Holds Unreasonable Delay Bars Duty Drawback Recovery, Quashes ₹38.77 Lakh Demand
Case Title : A. Kiyasdeen v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 24628 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 176
The Madras High Court on 7 July held that customs authorities cannot recover duty drawback benefits after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, even when the relevant rules do not prescribe a specific limitation period for such recovery. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against A.Kiyasdeen, an exporter for recovery of Rs. 38.77 lakh in duty drawback and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, holding that the proceedings initiated several years after the drawback was granted could not be sustained in the absence of allegations of fraud or suppression.
MODVAT Credit On Furnace Oil Cannot Be Denied For Exempt Intermediate Goods: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number : R.C. 10 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 180
The Madras High Court has held that MODVAT credit availed on furnace oil used to manufacture exempt intermediate goods need not be reversed where such goods are captively consumed or transferred within the same company for manufacturing dutiable final products. A Division Bench of Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel upheld Tata Refractories Ltd.'s claim for MODVAT credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), holding that the credit could not be denied merely because DBM was an exempt intermediate product, as it was used for manufacturing dutiable refractory products.
Madras High Court Holds Lease Area Reduction Cannot Attract Fresh Stamp Duty, Orders ₹1.15 Cr Refund
Case Title : District Registrar (Administration) Central Chennai v. Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : W.A.No.1648 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 181
The Madras High Court on 13 July held that an amendment agreement executed only to reduce the leased area of a property does not create a fresh lease and cannot be subjected to a fresh levy of stamp duty. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the order directing refund of over Rs. 1.15 crore collected as stamp duty from Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd. (now STT Global Data Centres India Pvt. Ltd.).
Madras High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment Under GST For Lack Of Tangible Material
Case Title : MH Metal and Steels v. Principal Commissioner
Case Number : WP No. 24414 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 184
The Madras High Court on 8 July held that a provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be sustained merely by reproducing the statutory language without disclosing any tangible material or reasons to justify the action. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the writ petition filed by MH Metal and Steels, challenging the provisional attachment of its bank accounts ordered on 26 February 2025. He held: “Turning to the second pre-requisite, the order uses the expression “in order to protect the interest of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Act”. This, however, is merely a mechanical recitation of the language of Section 83 and does not satisfy the requirements for issuing an order of provisional attachment.”
Case Title : Eskay Design v. Union of India & Ors. (Batch Matters)
Case Number : W.A. No. 2282 of 2025 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 185
The Madras High Court has upheld a 2014 notification that authorised officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (now the Directorate General of GST Intelligence) to investigate service tax cases and issue show cause notices across India, regardless of where the taxpayer was located. The court held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) was empowered to confer all-India jurisdiction on Central Excise officers through notifications issued under the Finance Act. A division bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala dismissed a batch of appeals and affirmed the common order of the Single Judge.
Madras High Court Upholds Sales Tax Demand Against Ford India Over Breach of Exemption Conditions
Case Title : TVL. Ford India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case Number : T.C. No.81 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 188
The Madras High Court has upheld the levy of Tamil Nadu sales tax on Ford India, holding that the company breached the conditions of a state government notification granting a sales tax exemption on purchases of goods used for manufacturing passenger cars after availing the benefit by furnishing declarations. The dispute relates to the 2001-02 assessment year The exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 381 covered purchases of goods used in the manufacture, assembling, packing and labelling of passenger cars and components at Ford India's Maraimalai Nagar factory.
Telangana HC
Telangana High Court Upholds Sales Tax On Blended Coffee Sold By Trademark Holder Beyond First Sale
Case Title : M/s. Amalgamated Holdings Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : TAX REVISION CASE No.216 & 217 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 47
The Telangana High Court has upheld the levy of sales tax on blended coffee sold by a trademark holder. It held that a dealer marketing goods under its own brand name at a point other than the first sale is liable to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the tax revision cases filed by Amalgamated Holdings Limited. Relying on an earlier ruling, it found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the sales tax authorities and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Best Judgment Assessment Cannot Ignore VAT Composition Scheme Compliance By Contractor: Telangana HC
Case Title : M/s. Chaitanya Enterprises v. The Commercial Tax Officer and 3 others
Case Number : Writ Petition No.20503 of 2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 50
The Telangana High Court on 13 July held that a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained when the assessing authority fails to consider the statutory composition scheme opted by a works contractor and ignores the records maintained in accordance with the law. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Nandikonda Narsing Rao set aside the assessment order passed against Chaitanya Enterprises, a proprietary concern engaged in electrical contracting works, which had challenged the levy of VAT of Rs. 28.09 lakh for the period from September 2005 to February 2008.
CESTAT
Case Title : Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50092 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 437
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has allowed Shriram General Insurance's claim for refund of ₹28.57 lakh paid towards Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) and Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) on insurance policies that were subsequently cancelled. The tribunal held that the refund could not be denied on the grounds of limitation or unjust enrichment after the insurer refunded the proportionate premium and tax component.
Ahmedabad CESTAT Grants Service Tax Relief On Government Staff Quarters, Remands APMC Issue
Case Title : Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Gandhinagar v. Paresh S. Patel
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10884 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 438
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 9 July held that construction of residential staff quarters and government infrastructure meant for personal use of government employees is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava and Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha partly allowed the Revenue's appeal against contractor Paresh S. Patel. While it granted relief for construction works undertaken for several government bodies, it remanded the issue relating to works executed for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) for fresh computation in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.
Case Title : SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42539 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 439
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹37.54 lakh against SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the alleged tax liability surfaced during a departmental audit. The tribunal held that the revenue had failed to establish the wilful suppression or intent to evade tax required to invoke the extended period.
CESTAT New Delhi Restores India-Thailand FTA Benefit To P.C. Jeweller Citing Verification Rules
Case Title : P.C. Jeweller Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 54806, 54832, 54833 & 54900 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 440
On Tuesday, 14 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi, held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) cannot deny preferential customs duty benefits under the India-Thailand Free Trade Agreement without following the prescribed procedure to verify Country of Origin (COO) Certificates with the issuing authority. A Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed a batch of appeals filed by P.C. Jeweller Ltd. and its officials and set aside the customs duty demands and penalties imposed on them.
Meeting Fees To Whole-Time Directors Not Taxable Under Reverse Charge Mechanism: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Oriental Chemical Works v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51489 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 441
The New Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 13 July held that meeting fees paid to whole-time directors are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), as such payments arise from an employer-employee relationship and are excluded from the definition of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Oriental Chemical Works and set aside the service tax demand raised against the company.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs (ACC Import), New Delhi v. QIAGEN India Private Limited
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51619-51629 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 442
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently held that QFT Tubes, though functionally used with ELISA kits, are not entitled to the concessional 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) available to ELISA kits. ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) is a diagnostic testing method used to detect diseases by analysing blood samples. It held that the exemption applies only to the complete diagnostic kit and not to its individual components. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the Department's appeals and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)' order granting the exemption.
CESTAT Delhi Upholds CENVAT Credit Reversal On Common Services Used For Own Investments
Case Title : IFCI Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51342 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 443
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the demand for proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on common input services used for both taxable services and an assessee's own investment activities. The tribunal held that buying and selling securities on one's own account is neither a taxable service nor an exempted service. It ruled that CENVAT credit attributable to such activities is inadmissible.
Case Title : HPCL Mittal Energy Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-II
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 53388 of 2014 and 54247 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 444
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not make ownership of goods a condition for claiming CENVAT credit. It observed that CENVAT credit is attached to inputs and not to persons. The tribunal, however, ruled that a manufacturer cannot claim credit on inputs where the contractor has availed the benefit of abatement under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme), as that would result in the same tax benefit being availed twice.
CESTAT Delhi Allows Pharma Company's ₹70 Lakh Refund, Holds Claim Not Hit By Unjust Enrichment
Case Title : Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51126 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 445
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has allowed a pharma company's appeal and held that its refund claim of about ₹70 lakh was not hit by unjust enrichment, setting aside orders directing the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The ruling was delivered by a tribunal comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao. Vivek Pharmachem India Ltd., which manufactures medicaments, had availed CENVAT credit of about ₹70 lakh on input services relating to service commissions.
Case Title : ATC Tires Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40099 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 446
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit cannot be denied a refund of service tax merely because the services were not consumed within the geographical limits of the SEZ, so long as they were used for authorised operations. A single-member tribunal of Technical Member Rajeev Tandon allowed an appeal filed by ATC Tires Private Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows YRF Studios' CENVAT Credit On Studio Repair and Renovation Works
Case Title : YRF Studios v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 88234 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 447
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed YRF Studios to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid for repair, renovation, and strengthening works carried out on its existing studio buildings. It held that the services were used for maintaining infrastructure from which the company's taxable output services were provided and were not covered by the exclusion applicable to construction services. The appeal was decided by Technical Member M.M. Parthiban. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, restored CENVAT credit of about ₹3.05 lakh, and quashed the penalty imposed on the company.
GSTAT
GSTAT Launches Token Facility For Appellants Facing Issues In E-Filing Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has activated the token generation facility for appellants facing issues while filing appeals on its e-filing portal. The facility is available through the scrolling highlights on the portal's home page. A token generated on or before July 31, 2026, will be treated as sufficient compliance with the appeal filing deadline. The appellant must, however, complete the actual filing within 60 days from the date of token generation.