LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
6 July 2026 7:15 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. and another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1423 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 51
The Allahabad High Court has held that a State through which goods merely transit cannot invoke Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to detain goods and levy penalty for the absence of an e-tax invoice where no taxable transaction takes place within that State. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi on 14 May allowed a writ petition filed by Maruti Enterprises and connected matters, holding that the Uttar Pradesh GST authorities lacked jurisdiction to levy penalty because the goods were travelling from West Bengal to Delhi and merely passed through Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title : Runway Impex and another v. Union of India and 2 others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 2238 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 52
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appellate authority cannot refuse to register an appeal merely because the appellant has not made the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, holding that the statutory requirement applies only at the stage of "entertaining" the appeal and not at the stage of its filing or registration. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi disposed of a writ petition filed by Runway Impex, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to register the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit at the registration stage and thereafter decide whether to entertain it.
Bombay HC
GST Notice To Amalgamated Company That Ceased To Exist Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 2586 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 359
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed a GST order against a real estate company. It held that a show cause notice issued after the company had ceased to exist pursuant to its amalgamation was without jurisdiction, making the proceedings that followed legally unsustainable. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed the writ petition filed by Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the GST authorities.
Calcutta HC
Case Title : M/s. Popat and Kotecha Property and Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Case Number : WPO 3068 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 163
The Calcutta High Court on 15 June held that municipal authorities cannot enhance property tax liability through undisclosed administrative policies lacking statutory backing, and set aside the enhancement of annual valuation imposed on Popat and Kotecha Property along with consequential tax demands. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that fiscal measures must rest on clear statutory authority and cannot be justified through internal administrative arrangements.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Restricts Excise Rebate In Coke Exports, Rejects Moisture Loss Claim
Case Title : M/s Mahashakti Coke v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : 2026:GUJHC:38597-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)78
The Gujarat High Court on 19 June held that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 allows rebate only on the quantity of goods actually exported and not on the higher quantity cleared from the factory on payment of excise duty. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Mahashakti Coke, which challenged the denial of rebate on the differential quantity of metallurgical coke.
Gujarat High Court Denies SVLDRS Benefit For Unquantified Tax Liability Before 30 June 2019 Cut-Off
Case Title : Planet Automative Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 15507 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)79
The Gujarat High Court on 18 June 2026 held that a taxpayer cannot claim benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) merely on the basis of admitting part of its tax liability during investigation, and that the entire tax liability must be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date of 30 June 2019 for eligibility under the Scheme. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Planet Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and another, and upheld the rejection of their declaration under the Scheme.
Taxpayer Cannot Claim Refund After Transitioning VAT Input Tax Credit To GST: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Dilip Babubhai Patel, Proprietor of M/s Shree Umiya Timbers v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 21685 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ)83
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a taxpayer who chooses to carry forward accumulated VAT input tax credit into the GST regime cannot later seek a cash refund of the same credit. Upholding the rejection of a refund claim of ₹18.75 lakh, the court observed that while transitional credit can be used to discharge output tax liability, it cannot be refunded once it has been carried forward into the GST regime. A division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati partly allowed a petition filed by Dilip Babubhai Patel, proprietor of Shree Umiya Timbers.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : PSPCL v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 10539 of 2026
The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Special Assessment) Amendment Rules, 2025, and consequential actions, including a demand of ₹16.324 crore raised on the Corporation. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma on Tuesday, while issuing notice to the State and other respondents, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner-Corporation pursuant to the impugned proceedings till the next date of hearing.
Madras HC
Case Title : RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.No.14847 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 166
The Madras High Court has held that mere communication to GST authorities expressing an intention to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) does not create any legal entitlement to such credit and cannot shield a taxpayer from proceedings for wrongful availment under the GST law. NCLT Case Tracker Justice C. Saravanan dismissed the petition filed by RMZ Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., now known as Chennai Business Tower Private Limited, which had challenged an order confirming denial of ineligible ITC of Rs. 92.29 crore for the period between July 2017 and March 2023.
CESTAT
Case Title : Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. i-Grandee Software Technologies (P) Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41727 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 381
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed the Service Tax Department's appeal seeking enhancement of penalty against i-Grandee Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It held that the dispute primarily arose from the adjustment of tax paid under different taxable categories and found no reason to interfere with the original order. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed, "the adjudicating authority has correctly appreciated the factual and legal position in holding that the dispute substantially arose on account of adjustment of excess tax already paid under a different taxable category and that no revenue loss had occurred."
Case Title : M/s Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No.70111 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 382
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 25 June held that excess amounts deposited under protest during provisional assessment cannot be treated as “duty” and remain revenue deposits until a duty liability is adjudicated. Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary allowed an appeal filed by Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Department to recalculate interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until 11 March 2024, after adjusting the interest already paid.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside ₹90,625 Service Tax Demand Over Time-Barred Show Cause Notice
Case Title : M/s Thakkers Harmony v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nashik Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 86718 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 383
On 25 June, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a show cause notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period was invalid, and accordingly set aside a service tax demand of Rs 90,625 raised against the appellant. Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati allowed the appeal filed by Thakkers Harmony and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Nashik, which had upheld the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
Case Title : N. C. Vision v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70039 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 384
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed an appeal filed by a cable services provider after finding that it had acted under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable in its case. The tribunal set aside the service tax demand and held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the circumstances. The single-member tribunal of Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary observed, "The Appellant has acted throughout in a bona fide manner and was under a bona fide belief that service tax was not applicable in the present case. Hence, the present issue relates to interpretation of complex legal provisions rather than intent to evade tax. Thus, the invocation of extended limitation period in the impugned order is unwarranted."
CESTAT Chennai Deletes ₹10.26 Lakh Service Tax Demand On Mayajaal Over Revenue-Sharing Model
Case Title : Tvl. Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41662 of 2017
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 385
On 29 June, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that amounts retained by Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. under revenue-sharing arrangements with restaurant and retail operators are not liable to service tax as Business Support Service. Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by Tvl. Mayajaal Entertainment Ltd. Following its earlier decision in the company's own case, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 10.26 lakh raised for a subsequent period, holding: “The arrangement between the appellant and the occupier are purely on revenue sharing basis, hence, would not fall under the scope of Business Support Service.”
CESTAT Chennai Says ELFA Diagnostic Kits Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption Available To ELISA Kits
Case Title : Biomerieux India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Audit)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40106 of 2024
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 386
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that diagnostic kits based on Enzyme-Linked Fluorescent Assay (ELFA) are entitled to the concessional customs duty exemption available to Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) kits. It ruled that ELFA is not a distinct diagnostic methodology but a technologically advanced application of ELISA. These diagnostic kits are used for medical tests, including the detection of infectious diseases, viral infections, hormonal disorders and other health conditions.
Case Title : Central Warehousing Corporation v. CGST & Central Excise, Ahmedabad South
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 10823 of 2015 and 11435 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 387
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demands of over ₹51 lakh raised against Central Warehousing Corporation. The tribunal held that the Revenue could not levy service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category by splitting a composite handling and transportation (H&T) contract. A bench of Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh allowed the appeals.
Service Tax Amnesty Declaration Cannot Be Reopened After Statutory Deadline: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : SSS Constructions v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41087 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 388
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently held that the Service Tax Department cannot reopen a declaration accepted under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) after the statutory time limit prescribed under the Scheme has expired. VCES, introduced in 2013, was a one-time service tax amnesty scheme that allowed taxpayers to voluntarily disclose and pay unpaid service tax dues from earlier years in return for immunity from further proceedings.
CESTAT Chandigarh Holds Municipal Multi-Level Parking Not Taxable, Sets Aside ₹1.85 Cr Demand
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I v. M/s Gautam Builders
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60762 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 389
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 July held that construction of a multi-level parking facility for a municipal corporation does not amount to a commercial activity when undertaken for public welfare and civic use. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 1.85 crore raised against Gautam Builders, and upheld an order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Case Title : M/s. Tata Bluescope Steel (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50001 of 2026 (SM)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 390
On 1 July, the Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that job work activity already treated as “manufacture” cannot later be reclassified as an “exempted service” for the purpose of invoking Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and raising consequential demands. A Bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed all three appeals filed by Tata Bluescope Steel Pvt. Ltd., set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and quashed the CENVAT credit demands raised by the Department.
CESTAT New Delhi Holds Sub-Contract Road Work Inherits Exemption, Sets Aside Over ₹35 Lakh Demand
Case Title : M/s. Harish Chandra Patel v. The Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 391
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that services relating to public road construction executed as a sub-contractor and construction of independent residential houses were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P. V. Subba Rao allowed an appeal filed by contractor Harish Chandra Patel and set aside an impugned service tax demand of Rs. 35.14 lakh. The Bench held: “we are satisfied that the contracts of the appellant with these three persons/entities were for construction of roads as sub-contractor which were exempted by S. No. 29(h) read with 13(a) of the notification”.
Case Title : Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50049 of 2026 (along with connected appeals)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 392
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld Customs' classification of Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and their parts as components of automobile steering systems, dismissing 17 appeals filed by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that the issue had already been settled in the company's own earlier cases involving identical goods. A bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' orders, holding that the imported goods were the same as those examined in the company's earlier appeals before the tribunal.
Case Title : Intertek Testing Services India Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 89820 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 393
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to a taxpayer by setting aside a service tax demand. The tribunal held that once the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the services did not fall under the taxable category alleged in the show cause notice, the appeal ought to have been allowed instead of sustaining the demand under a different taxable entry. A bench of Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban ruled in favour of Intertek Testing Services India Ltd.
Case Title : R.R. Stones Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30414 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 394
The Hyderabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a service tax rebate claim filed more than one year after the Let Export Order (LEO) is barred by limitation under a 2012 government notification governing export rebates. The tribunal ruled that the notification prescribes its own limitation period. It cannot be extended by relying on the general refund provisions of the Central Excise Act.
Suppression In ST-3 Returns Justifies Extended Limitation And Statutory Penalty: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Jain & Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Meerut-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70188 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 395
On 2 June, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that suppression of the actual value of taxable services in ST-3 returns justifies a service tax demand based on mismatch with Income Tax Returns (ITR). Legal case summaries Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava held that such suppression warrants invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by Jain & Company against the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurgaon I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 60427 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 398
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against the rejection of its service tax refund claim. It held that notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions on Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units that are not prescribed under the SEZ Rules. The bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed, "the Notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot impose restrictions which are not prescribed under SEZ Rules and consequently the limitation of one year period does not apply in the present case."
CESTAT New Delhi Rejects Duty Demand Under Replenishment Scheme For Jewellery With 2.05% Norm
Case Title : State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (ACC-Import), New Delhi (Connected with Arun Kumar Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs and M/s Venus Industries v. Commissioner of Customs)
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 50495 of 2021, 50195 of 2020 & 50196 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 396
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 June held that customs authorities cannot demand duty under the Replenishment Scheme when exported jewellery is manufactured through a fully mechanised process and the applicable value addition requirement stands at 2.05% under the Foreign Trade Policy, rather than 3.5%. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC), Venus Industries, and its partner Arun Kumar Agarwal, and set aside the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties.
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside ₹3.92 Cr. Demand Based On Compilations, Holds Re-Export Must Be Verified
Case Title : M/s. Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 40046 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 397
On 1 July, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside a customs duty demand of Rs. 3.92 crore raised against Econship Tech Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that customs authorities cannot deny exemption under Notification No. 104/94-Cus. without independently verifying container-wise export compliance. Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that the dispute required reconciliation and verification of export records rather than a mere assumption of non-re-export of imported containers.
CESTAT Kolkata Holds Control Of Premises Suffices For Liability In Gold Seizure Case, Cuts Penalty
Case Title : Md. Faiyaz Alam v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76528 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 399
On 2 July 2026, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an individual who controlled premises from which authorities recovered a substantial quantity of gold cannot avoid penalty under the Customs Act merely on the ground that he lacked physical possession, as surrounding circumstances established his involvement in handling goods liable for confiscation. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty imposed on Md. Faiyaz Alam from Rs. 8 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh.
Case Title : Municipal Corporation, Mohali v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51281 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 400
On 1 July, the Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demands raised against the Mohali Municipal Corporation, on revenue earned from advertisements, holding that a Municipal Corporation was not covered within the term “person” under the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the Municipal Corporation, being a sovereign local body, could not be brought within the ambit of taxable service under the category “Selling of Space for Advertisement Service” prior to 1 July 2012.
Case Title : M/s Makin Developers Private Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 51048 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 401
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that the extended limitation period could not be sustained in a service tax dispute after finding that the assessee had no intention to evade tax because any amount paid under the reverse charge mechanism would have been immediately available as CENVAT credit. On that basis, the tribunal set aside a service tax demand raised by invoking the extended limitation period.
Case Title : Tata Teleservices Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55075 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 402
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service recipients could use CENVAT credit to discharge service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on imported services before 1 July 2012. It ruled that the restriction barring use of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax where the recipient was liable to pay tax came into force only from 1 July 2012 and could not be applied retrospectively. The tribunal also held that a show cause notice issued in 2017 for the period between October 2011 and March 2012 was barred by limitation because the Department could not justify invoking the extended period.
Case Title : Domnic Jacob Sequeira v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Connected Appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 75062 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 405
On 3 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs authorities cannot confiscate exotic birds and mammals or impose penalties merely on suspicion of smuggling, where the goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the Department fails to discharge the burden of proving illegal import. Maps A Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice (Dr.) Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeals filed by Domnic Jacob Sequeira and Gouse Gaffar Shaikh.
Case Title : Dinesh Prasad v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75468 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 403
On 2 July, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Customs cannot treat gold as smuggled merely on suspicion and set aside the confiscation of 1.75 kg of gold along with penalties imposed by the department. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Dinesh Prasad and Raj Kumar Soni and quashed the confiscation order passed by Customs.
E-Rickshaw Parts Without Motors, Batteries Not Complete Vehicles In CKD Form: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Zeniak Innovation India Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75544 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 404
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 2 July held that imported e-rickshaw parts without essential components such as motors and batteries cannot be treated as complete e-rickshaws in a completely knocked down (CKD) condition. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed cross-appeals filed by Zeniak Innovation India Ltd and the Revenue in a dispute over customs classification of imported e-rickshaw components.
Other Developments
Centre Extends GSTAT Appeal Deadline To July 31 For Legacy GST Orders
The Centre has extended the deadline for filing legacy appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) by a month, giving taxpayers until July 31, 2026, to file appeals against orders communicated before May 1, 2026. The extension replaces the earlier June 30 deadline and has been notified by the Ministry of Finance. Under the revised timeline, departmental applications in respect of orders passed before February 1, 2026, can also be filed until July 31. Appeals against orders communicated on or after May 1, 2026, and departmental applications relating to orders passed on or after February 1, 2026, will continue to be governed by the normal limitation periods prescribed under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
Arrest Under GST Law Need Not Await Tax Adjudication If 'Reason To Believe' Exists: Chennai Court
Case Title : Dr. Obed Ulla A v. State
Case Number : Crl.M.P. No. 5550 of 2026 in R.R. No. 9 of 2026
A Chennai court has recently refused bail to a director of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. in a GST evasion case, holding that authorities need not wait for completion of tax adjudication before making an arrest if they possess sufficient material to form a "reason to believe" that an offence has been committed. Principal Sessions Judge S. Karthikeyan dismissed the bail plea of Dr. Obed Ulla A, who was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on June 12 in connection with an investigation into alleged GST evasion. The court found that the investigation remained at an early stage and that custodial interrogation was still necessary.
CBIC Notifies Rules For Preferential Tariff Benefits Under India-UK CETA Ahead Of 15 July Rollout
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 3 July notified the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between India and the United Kingdom) Rules, 2026, paving the way for implementation of the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) from 15 July. They will come into force on the same day as the trade pact.