LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 15 - June 21, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
22 Jun 2026 10:01 AM IST
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Absence Of Signature On GST Assessment Order Renders It Legally Invalid: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 7693/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 43
On 15 June, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned GST assessment order suffers from an inherent legal defect and cannot be sustained in law, reaffirming that statutory orders must bear proper authentication to be enforceable. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the impugned assessment order while allowing the writ petition filed by Nominee Works Committee Kalavalla and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The judges held: “This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc.”
Bombay HC
Bombay HC Quashes GST Demand Raised Through Single Notice Covering Multiple Financial Years
Case Title : Rithwik Projects Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.4061 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 329
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a GST demand of about ₹2.54 crore raised through a single show cause notice spanning more than four years. The Court held that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav allowed a petition filed by Rithwik Projects Private Limited. The Bench observed that the controversy was already covered by earlier decisions of the Court, particularly Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Hilotex International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7706 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 69
The Gujarat High Court on 15 June held that customs authorities cannot withhold imported consignments by retrospectively applying a subsequent interim order and insisting on Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification for goods imported during a period when such certification was not mandatory. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati allowed a petition filed by Hilotex International Pvt. Ltd., holding that customs authorities acted arbitrarily in placing imported consignments on hold despite imports having taken place during a BIS-free regime.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : Canara Bank v. The Union of India
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 10234 OF 2020 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 89
The Karnataka High court has held that maintenance of a Minimum Average Balance (MAB) in a bank account is merely a contractual condition and cannot be treated as "consideration" for banking services so as to attract service tax. A bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar quashed show-cause notices issued to Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda (formerly Vijaya Bank), Karnataka Bank and another bank over the proposed levy of service tax on facilities extended to customers maintaining minimum balances in their accounts.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Part Of Arbitral Award Over GST Computation On Non-Tendered Works
Case Title : NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES vs URC CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS
Case Number : COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 90
The Karnataka High Court has partly set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) and URC Constructions Pvt Ltd. The court held that the arbitral tribunal ignored material evidence while concluding that the value of non-tendered items was ₹9.65 crore exclusive of GST. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha found that invoices and other records on the arbitral record showed that at least some GST was included in the ₹9.65 crore figure. The tribunal had failed to consider that material.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title : Gujral Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Indraneel Singh Gujral vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 27879 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MP) 43
The Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a private company operating a tourism corporation-owned motel for commercial purposes is liable to pay property tax and other charges and cannot claim exemption from property tax on the ground that the property belongs to the State. The court, however, ruled that the operator could not be made liable for any period before it entered into the agreement to run the motel.
Madras HC
Case Title : KPR Enterprises v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number : W.P.Nos.35453/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 151
The Madras High Court has upheld GST proceedings against a quarry operator. It held that a mismatch between seigniorage fees paid for mineral extraction and the value of outward supplies reported in GST returns was sufficient to justify the tax department's prima facie view that turnover had been suppressed. Justice C. Saravanan dismissed writ petitions filed by KPR Enterprises for the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 tax periods.
Telangana HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs v. M/s Zoom Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : C.E.A No.10 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (TEL) 35
The Telangana High Court has held that disputes involving whether a transaction constitutes a “sale of goods” or a “service” raise questions of taxability and are not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as such issues lie within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A Division Bench of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs against Zoom Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.
CESTAT
Immovability Of Plant Does Not Bar CENVAT Credit On Duty-Paid Machinery: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : ITC Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 27150 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBizCESTAT(HYD) 347
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 June held that manufacturers can avail CENVAT credit on duty-paid machinery, components and equipment used to set up an integrated plant even if the completed plant becomes immovable property. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed ITC Ltd.'s appeal, observing that ownership of the goods and their attachment to earth do not determine eligibility for credit and set aside a demand of Rs. 1.89 crore along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Bars Vivisection Of Turnkey Project, Allows CENVAT Credit To L&T
Case Title : Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 27014 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 346
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 June held that authorities cannot artificially dissect an integrated turnkey project to deny CENVAT credit, and that the substance of the contractual arrangement must prevail over isolated treatment of individual components. Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeal filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) and set aside a demand of Rs. 2.22 crore along with interest and penalty.
Case Title : J.K. Engicon Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna connected with M/s J.K. & BSECPL (JV) v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 75393 of 2024 and 75451 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 348
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has recently set aside service tax demands of about ₹19.26 lakh raised under the reverse charge mechanism against two road and bridge contractors. The tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that they had obtained any mining rights or paid royalty pursuant to a mining licence. The decision was delivered by Judicial Member R. Muralidhar, who allowed the appeals filed by J.K. Engicon Private Limited and J.K. & BSECPL (JV).
Late Fee On Supplementary Bills Of Entry Cannot Be Imposed In A Routine Manner: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Bhubaneswar
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76044 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 350
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Kolkata has recently observed that late fees for delayed filing of Bills of Entry must not be imposed routinely where the delay is not attributable to the importer. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon set aside late fees levied on Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. in six appeals arising from supplementary Bills of Entry filed for excess quantities of imported coal.
Case Title : Heena Tours & Travels v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 87868 and 88604 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 351
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that no service tax was payable on tour operator services rendered entirely in Jammu & Kashmir during the period from October 2005 to September 2010. It held that the service tax law in force at the time did not extend to the State. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal filed by Heena Tours & Travels. The Bench also dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
CESTAT Mumbai Orders Interest On Delayed Refund Of Extra Duty Deposit Collected During SVB Probe
Case Title : Vardhman Acrylics Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 87862 and 87864 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 352
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vardhman Acrylics Limited is entitled to interest on the delayed refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) collected during a Special Valuation Branch (SVB) investigation. The tribunal ruled that interest became payable because the refund was not granted within the prescribed period after the amount became refundable. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the company's appeals. It set aside orders denying interest on the refund. The tribunal observed that EDD, though in the nature of a deposit and not customs duty, becomes refundable when no differential duty is found payable after completion of the valuation exercise.
Case Title : M/s TIL Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75313 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 353
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has held that an earthmoving equipment manufacturer and lessor was not liable to pay service tax on equipment rental transactions. The Tribunal held that possession and effective control of the equipment had been transferred to customers and that VAT had been paid on the transactions. The ruling was delivered by a Bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan while allowing the appeal filed by TIL Ltd. The appeal challenged an order confirming a service tax demand of ₹2.10 crore and an equal penalty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad Bars Sugar Cess On Exported Sugar, Sets Aside ₹77.5 Lakh Demand
Case Title : Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 12581 of 2019- DB
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 354
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 June held that authorities cannot levy sugar cess on sugar exported outside India, observing that statutory notifications expressly exempt exported sugar from such levy. Summaries Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeal filed by Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. and set aside the demand of Rs.77.50 lakh along with interest and penalty. The Bench held: “sugar cess was exempt for that quantity of sugar which is produced in India but exported out of country”.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹14.59 Crore Service Tax Demand Against Bihar State Sugar Corporation
Case Title : Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75865 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 355
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹14.59 crore against Bihar State Sugar Corporation Limited. It held that a show cause notice issued before the insertion of Section 73(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could not sustain a demand for the normal period after the extended limitation period was found inapplicable. “Accordingly, we hold that in the present case, the demand even for the normal period does not sustain,” the tribunal held.
No Service Tax On Pal Promoters' Construction For Police Housing, Tsunami Rehab: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s. Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.41810 of 2014
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 356
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 June held that construction services provided to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation (TNHPCL), Tsunami District Implementation Unit, Pudukkotai (TDIU), and Peoples Development Association (PDA) do not attract service tax, as the projects do not constitute commercial construction activity. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed appeals filed by Pal Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director P. Panneerselvam against service tax demands for the period 2007–2012.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Service Tax Demands Against Indian Bank On Limitation Ground
Case Title : Indian Bank v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41179 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 357
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, granted relief to Indian Bank and held that where transactions are duly recorded in statutory books, and there is no evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax, the larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao while allowing appeals filed by Indian Bank against service tax demands raised on various issues including turnover commission, arrangement charges, foreign exchange income, CENVAT credit reversals, and credit availment.
Case Title : Integral Coach Factory v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 40732 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 358
On 18 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that refund of excess excise duty cannot be denied merely because invoices did not mention batch numbers, where the taxpayer establishes correlation through batch-costing records and contemporaneous documents. Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed an appeal filed by Integral Coach Factory (ICF) against the Commissioner of Central Excise, holding that procedural lapses could not defeat substantive entitlement and remanded the matter for limited verification of quantification, limitation, and record correlation.
DGFT Public Notice Cannot Impose Actual User Condition On Transferable DFIA Imports: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Global Exim v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75348 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 359
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has held that an actual user condition imposed through a DGFT public notice cannot be enforced against imports made under a transferable Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA). The tribunal ruled that the DFIA in question had been issued on a post-export basis. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed that the condition was not binding on Global Exim, which had claimed exemption from basic customs duty on imports made under a transferable DFIA.
Case Title : Libra Business Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 77079 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 360
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT credit on tippers cannot be denied merely because the vehicles were received before tippers were brought within the definition of capital goods. The tribunal observed that eligibility for credit must be examined when the vehicles are put to use for rendering output services. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed an appeal filed by Libra Business Private Limited. It set aside a demand of about ₹1.04 crore along with interest. The bench also dropped the penalty imposed on the company.
Case Title : General Agencies (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76208 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 361
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Kolkata has set aside ₹40 lakh in penalties imposed on a Kolkata-based importer of kerosene generator sets. The tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued long after the goods had been cleared and sold in the market. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member Rajeev Tandon noted that even if the imports were assumed to have resulted in the clearance of polluting generator sets, issuing a show cause notice after the goods had entered the market would not address the alleged environmental concern.
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Confiscation Of 3.65 Kg Gold After Jeweller Produces GST, Purchase Records
Case Title : Shri Akhil Maheshwari v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75149 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 362
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside the confiscation of more than 3.65 kg of gold claimed by a Meerut jeweller. The tribunal held that records produced by the claimants showed the gold had been procured on payment of GST and accounted for in the firm's books. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed appeals filed by Akhil Maheshwari, Anil Kumar Yadav and Nikhil Maheshwari. The bench also directed the release of the gold and set aside the penalties imposed on them.
GSTAT
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering, DGAP v. Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM
Case Number : NAPA/25/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 25
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has upheld a finding against Hyderabad-based Vishwanath Cinema Hall 70MM that it profiteered by nearly ₹9 lakh after a GST rate cut on certain cinema tickets. Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain rejected the cinema hall's objections and accepted the findings of the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) According to the authority, the cinema hall profiteered ₹8.99 lakh for the period between January 1 and June 30, 2019.