LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 09 - March 15, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
16 March 2026 6:04 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Fox Mandal & Company Takes ₹3.9 Crore Service Tax Dispute To Supreme Court
Case Title : Fox Mandal And Company vs Commissioner
Case Number : Diary No. 3350 of 2026
Fox Mandal & Company has moved the Supreme Court against a CESTAT order in a service tax case involving demands of about ₹3.9 crore against the law firm. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe will hear the special leave petition on April 6 after the petitioner's counsel sought time to place an additional annexure relating to reconciliation issues raised in the plea.
Case Title : Carbon Resources Pvt. Limited vs Union of India
Case Number : DIARY NO. 8158/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the denial of utilisation or refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit (ITC) after the cess on coal was scrapped. The petition, filed by Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd., claims the change has left the company with around Rs 23 crore in compensation cess credit that has become unusable because no mechanism was provided to either utilise or refund it.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : Daulat Samirmal Mehta v. Assistant Director, DGGI & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 31 1 1 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 123
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that such liberty cannot be restricted merely on the basis of apprehensions that are not supported by material on record. The court permitted a businessman facing prosecution in a GST fraud case to travel overseas for business as well as personal reasons, observing that conditions requiring prior permission before traveling abroad are intended to ensure that the accused remains available for trial and does not evade the process of law and cannot be relied upon when the material on record does not indicate any such risk.
Cash Seizure Without 'Reason to Believe' Violates CGST Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Smruti Waghdhare v. Joint Director, DGGI & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 839 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 135
The Bombay High Court on 10 March quashed the seizure of Rs. 1 crore in cash by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) from Smruti Waghdhare, holding the action arbitrary and without authority under the CGST Act. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition challenging the seizure, under which Rs. 60 lakh was recovered from her premises and Rs. 40 lakh from her parents' residence during search operations.
Bombay High Court Stays Multiple GST Notices On Leasehold Transfers Until Supreme Court Ruling
Case Title : Swastik Processor Versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 42522 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 136
The Bombay High Court on 25 February granted interim protection to taxpayers facing GST proceedings on the assignment of leasehold rights, directing that recovery actions and adjudication of show cause notices be stayed until the Supreme Court of India decides the issue. A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing multiple writ petitions filed by companies challenging GST demands on the transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in industrial plots and buildings, which the revenue authorities had treated as “supply” under Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II(2) of the CGST Act.
Gauhati HC
Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded Solely Based On Form 26AS Data Without Inquiry: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Customs v. M/s Numal Saikia
Case Number : C.Ex.App./7/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 8
The Gauhati High Court on 20 February, held that the Revenue Department cannot demand Service Tax from a taxpayer, solely on the basis of information provided in Form 26AS. The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Shamima Jahan heard an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Dibrugarh, against a CESTAT Kolkata order that had set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 6,39,09,190 imposed on a contractor.
GST Summary Notice Cannot Replace Statutory Show Cause Notice: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : Md. Shoriful Islam v. State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 471/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 6
The Gauhati High Court has held that a summary of a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under the GST law. Justice Soumitra Saikia quashed the order dated August 29, 2024, issued against the taxpayer, Md. Shoriful Islam, under the GST regime after observing that the tax authorities had only issued a summary of the show cause notice along with an attachment containing the determination of tax.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Sets Aside ₹30,000 Customs Penalty On Zaveri & Co. For Wrong Regulatory Action
Case Title : Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2415 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 28
The Gujarat High Court on 24 February set aside a penalty imposed on Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. for alleged violations of warehousing regulations, holding that the customs authorities had initiated proceedings under the wrong regulatory framework and failed to provide the audit report that formed the basis of the action. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by the company challenging the penalty order dated 30 December 2025 issued by the Customs Department of India.
Gujarat High Court Grants Interim Relief To R.R. Exports Against HSNSC Cess Registration
Case Title : M/S. R R EXPORTS THROUGH PARTNER MR. YOGESH J JOSHI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2567 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 27
The Gujarat High Court on 26 February granted interim relief to R.R. Exports after it challenged a requirement to register its unit, operating in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), under the Health Security and National Security Cess Act, 2025 (HSNSCA). A Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi issued notice in the case while recording that: “Prima facie, we find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner.”
Case Title : Rohitkumar Parsotambhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 2111 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 30
The Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to an advocate who was arrested for allegedly filing GST returns for firms that are claimed to be non-existent, fake entities. Sanghani has been booked under Sections 132 (1)(b) (whoever issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax), and 132 (1) (c) (whoever avails input tax credit using the invoice or bill referred to in clause (b) or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Input Tax Credit Transfer On Company Amalgamation Not Restricted By State: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : Emerson Process Management India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7006 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 32
The Gujarat High Court on 5 March held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied on the amalgamation of companies merely because the transferor and transferee entities are registered in different States. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi heard a petition filed by Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. challenging the refusal of GST authorities to allow the transfer of ITC following the amalgamation of Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt. Ltd., following a scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 14 November 2019.
Case Title : Ashland India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12738 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 35
The Gujarat High Court on 20 February, held that a rebate of central excise duty on exported goods cannot be denied merely due to procedural lapses, such as non-submission of original ARE-1 documents, when the fact of export and payment of duty is otherwise established through supporting records. A Division Bench of Justice A. S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed the writ petition filed by Ashland India Private Limited, setting aside orders that had rejected the company's rebate claim of Rs. 1.29 crore.
Gujarat High Court Holds GST Order Against Pacific Cyber Technology Invalid For Overlooking Reply
Case Title : Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/SCA NO. 15064/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GUJ) 37
The Gujarat High Court on 5 February set aside a GST detention and demand order passed against Pacific Cyber Technology Pvt. Ltd., observing that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the company regarding delay in movement of goods due to a technical fault in the vehicle. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi held: “It appears that the appellate authority has not even remotely adverted to the explanation tendered by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the same.”
Madras HC
Madras High Court Upholds Same-Month ISD Credit Rule Under CGST, Dismisses Reliance Jio's Challenge
Case Title : Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : WP No s .27038
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 69
The Madras High Court on 5 March upheld the validity of Rule 39(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates that an Input Service Distributor (ISD) must allocate tax credits within the same month in which an invoice is received. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, challenging the provision governing the timing of distribution of Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v Ceramic Tableware
Case Number : D.B. Custom Appeal No. 7/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 10
The Rajasthan High Court has recently observed that amendments in the Bill of Entry can be made even after a search is conducted, and such amendments cannot be refused merely because the error was detected by the department and not disclosed suo motu by the importer. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma said that the purpose of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 is to ensure proper assessment and that the power to allow amendment must be exercised reasonably.
CESTAT
CESTAT Allows Perrigo Lab's ₹44.72 Lakh CENVAT Credit Refund Denied Over Clerical Invoice Error
Case Title : Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Rural
Case Number : Final Order No.: 85396/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 103
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed an appeal filed by Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., holding that part of its refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit was wrongly rejected due to a clerical discrepancy in invoices. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals), Thane, which had denied a refund of Rs 44.72 lakh on the ground that the original invoice supporting the claim had not been produced.
Case Title : PRIVILEGE AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE)
Case Number : CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 106
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi recently set aside a customs duty demand of nearly Rs 19.76 crore raised against Privilege Airways Pvt. Ltd. over the import of a Falcon 2000 aircraft. The tribunal held that an aircraft imported for non-scheduled passenger services can also be used for non-scheduled charter services under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs.
Mere Audit Detection Not Ground To Invoke Extended Limitation Under Finance Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan Housing Board v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : Final Order No. 50319/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 104
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi on 9 March, emphasised that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of a specific allegation of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ms. Binu Tamta and Technical Member Ms. Hemambika R. Priya, set aside a service tax demand raised against the Rajasthan Housing Board, holding that where the taxpayer had disclosed the availment of CENVAT credit in its ST-3 returns, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period merely because the issue was detected during an audit.
Minimum Import Price Not Applicable To Domestic Tariff Clearances By 100% EOUs: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Exotic Granite LLP v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 10498 of 2020-DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 105
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 3 March held that the Minimum Import Price (MIP) set by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) cannot be used to increase the assessable value of goods cleared by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unless there is evidence of undervaluation. The Bench, comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, partly allowed Exotic Granite LLP's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kutch, setting aside a Rs. 3.33 crore duty demand while upholding a smaller Rs. 28.59 lakh duty.
Service Tax Fully Exempt For Rural Skill And Vocational Training Under DDU-GKY: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10557 of 2020 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, on 27 February, ruled that training services under the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) are exempt from service tax if covered by the applicable notifications. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh, allowed the appeal by Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., confirming that providing skill and vocational training to rural youth under DDU-GKY was fully exempt from service tax for the relevant period.
Supply Of Water To Vessels Within Port Liable To Service Tax Before 2010 Exemption: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Sea Shipping Services v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 11127 of 2017 – DB
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 108
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the supply of water to vessels within a port area forms part of “port services” and is liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 for the period prior to the exemption introduced with effect from July 1, 2010. The bench comprising Judicial Member Dr Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh observed that, “We therefore, agree with the arguments of learned AR duly supported by the clarification issued by CBEC vide their letter dated 09.07.2001 read with Notification No.31/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 that supply of water within the port area is covered under the category of port services and is leviable to service tax prior to 01.07.2010.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Tobacco Processing Job Work: CESTAT Hyderabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal
Case Title : Commissioner of Central Tax Guntur - GST v. M/s Premier Tobacco Packers
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 30423 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 109
The Hyderabad Bench of CESTAT has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against Premier Tobacco Packers, holding that service tax cannot be levied on job work relating to threshing and redrying of tobacco leaves, as the issue is already settled by earlier Tribunal rulings treating such activity as processing of agricultural produce. The bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Appeal, which had set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 1,66,98,271 along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : Shahnaz Ayurvedics (Dehradoon) v. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Dehradun
Case Number : EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50578 OF 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 110
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the 18 disputed products manufactured by Shahnaz Ayurvedics are Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines and not cosmetics, and therefore the excise duty demand, interest and penalties raised by the Department cannot be sustained. The bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed that the mere presence of excipients or fillers cannot take a product out of the category of Ayurvedic Patent and Proprietary medicines.
GSTAT
Samsung India Anti-Profiteering Case: GSTAT Directs DGAP To Re-Examine Cost, CSD Supply Issues
Case Title : DGAP v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/38/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at New Delhi has directed the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) to re-examine certain issues in the anti-profiteering proceedings involving Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. after the matter had earlier been reserved for pronouncement of the final order. A bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad passed the order after considering the matter and holding a conference between the members of the bench, concluding that certain aspects required further examination by the investigating authority.
Case Title : Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Tata Play Limited
Case Number : NAPA/166/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 10
The Principle Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) in New Delhi on 11 March directed Tata Play Ltd. to deposit Rs. 450.18 crore in the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds in a 50:50 ratio, holding that it engaged in GST profiteering. A Division Bench comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member A. Venu Prasad concluded that the company had failed to pass on the tax benefit to consumers as mandated under the GST Anti-Profiteering law.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CBIC Issues Simplified Procedure For Export Cargo Returning To India After Strait Of Hormuz Closure
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued a circular prescribing a simplified procedure for handling export cargo that is returning to Indian ports after vessels were unable to reach their destinations due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted amid ongoing conflict in the Gulf region, forcing several commercial vessels to turn back before reaching their destination ports.
Govt Spent ₹88.74 Crore On Advertising 'GST Bachat Utsav': Finance Ministry Tells Lok Sabha
The Union Government spent Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the “GST Bachat Utsav," a publicity campaign to spread awareness about GST rate rationalisation, the Ministry of Finance informed the Lok Sabha in response to a question on March 9, 2026. Responding to a question raised by Jagdish Chandra Barma Basunia, BJP MP from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, the Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary, stated that the government incurred Rs 88.74 crore on advertising for the campaign. GST Bachat Utsav was a 100-day, nationwide, post-56th GST Council meeting campaign launched on September 22, 2025, to pass on reduced tax benefits to consumers.
The Union government has informed the Lok Sabha that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework does not provide separate tax treatment for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) or foods high in fat, sugar, or salt (HFSS), and that no formal assessment has been undertaken on the potential health and economic benefits of imposing higher taxes on such products. Responding to a question asked by Congress MP G. Kumar Naik from Raichur in Karnataka, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said on Monday that GST rates and exemptions are prescribed on the recommendations of the GST Council, which consists of members of the Union and State governments.