LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 04 - May 10, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
11 May 2026 4:02 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 12390/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 182
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Revenue regarding the digitisation of 14 files seized in a GST investigation that are now stated to be missing in the case of Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. The taxpayer argued that the absence of the original files affected its ability to establish the genuineness of transactions in pending GST adjudication proceedings. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted the Revenue's stand that although the original physical files were missing, all the documents had already been digitised and supplied to the taxpayer in a pen drive.
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
University Affiliation, NOCs Not 'Supply', No GST On Statutory Functions: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : W.P.No.23535
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 35
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 April, held that services provided by universities, such as grant of affiliation and issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs), are not liable to GST, as these activities are statutory in nature and do not qualify as “business” or “supply” under GST law. A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, while hearing a batch of writ petitions including those filed by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada and other similarly placed State universities, also held that amounts collected for affiliation, accreditation, and related approvals are not taxable services under the GST framework.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Manjeet Singh son of Ujagar Singh Vs The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 13113 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 270
The Bombay High Court has held that the government cannot retain stamp duty wrongly paid by a citizen merely because there was a short delay in seeking a refund. The Court said procedural delay cannot defeat a person's substantive right to recover money mistakenly paid under a wrong stamp duty head, particularly when the transaction could not proceed further. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the state cannot “unjustly enrich itself” by forfeiting money paid due to an inadvertent mistake. The court reproduced the Supreme Court's observation that the State should not ordinarily rely on technicalities while dealing with citizens.
Bombay High Court Directs Emirates To Pursue GST Appeal In Air Cargo Services Tax Dispute
Case Title : Emirates Vs State of Maharasthra
Case Number : WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10258 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 269
The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Emirates challenging a GST demand order passed by the Maharashtra State Tax Department over taxation of air cargo transportation services. The airline argued that transportation of goods by aircraft from India to destinations outside India, along with ancillary services, formed part of a composite supply exempt from GST under a Central Government notification issued in 2018 granting exemption to export air cargo transportation services.
Bombay High Court Quashes Post-Merger GST Demand Against Vodafone Mobile Services
Case Title : Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) Vs Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 6637 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 273
The Bombay High Court has recently held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after it ceased to exist due to its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. were void ab initio. The court set aside the adjudication order and held that the show cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that, “the show-cause notice itself having been issued without jurisdiction, the proceedings stand vitiated and are rendered void ab initio.”
Case Title : Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 275
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the taxpayer had earlier filed another refund application for a broader tax period, where the later claim was filed within the limitation period and there is no statutory bar against such a claim. Referring to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which governs refund claims, the Court said: “Section 54 does not provide any bar for a party to maintain more than one application, and more particularly, in a case where there is an inadvertent mistake or lapse.”
Case Title : M/s D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : GST, Corporate Guarantee, Taxable Supply, Consideration, Rule 28 CGST Rules, DGGI, Supply of Services, Holding Company, Subsidiary Company, Edelweiss Financial Services
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 281
The Bombay High Court has held that D.P. Jain & Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. cannot be subjected to GST for corporate guarantees it issued to State Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra to secure loans granted to its group companies, as the company received no consideration for furnishing those guarantees. A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta observed: “There was no flow of consideration for the rendering of services. Therefore, taxability does not arise There was no consideration for the corporate guarantees were issued by the Petitioner on behalf of the companies.”
Case Title : IDFC First Bank Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 280
The Bombay High Court has quashed a ₹10.25 crore GST demand raised against Capital First Limited post its merger with IDFC First Bank. It held that proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that despite repeated intimations about the merger, the department continued proceedings against the non-existent entity. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, the Court reiterated that “the initiation of assessment proceedings against an entity which had ceased to exist was void ab initio.”
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Directs Release of Seized Gold, Notes Redemption Relief Already Granted
Case Title : HARISH KUMAR VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & GENERAL)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 12711/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 463
The Delhi High Court has directed Customs authorities to release seized gold after noting that an individual passenger had already been granted redemption of the goods in appeal, which was affirmed in revision. A bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the petitioner, Harish Kumar, had secured substantial relief through the appellate process, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Authority.
Case Title : Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17500/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 474
The Delhi High Court on Friday reiterated that education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support services rendered by an Indian entity to foreign universities would not qualify as “intermediary services” under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and would instead constitute export of services eligible for GST refund. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited, which had challenged an order rejecting its refund claim of ₹2.63 crore.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 18080 of 2023 (Lead Matter) along with connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 61
The Gujarat High Court has on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of a GST provision that denies input tax credit to a purchaser if the supplier has not deposited the tax with the government. The court upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that entitlement to input tax credit is conditional upon actual payment of tax to the government.
Madras HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Customs v. Orion Enterprises
Case Number : C.M.A.No.1327 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 124
The Madras High Court has held that an importer cannot escape penalties for misdeclaration and use of false documents merely by opting to re-export the goods after detection. "The order of re-export on payment of redemption fine will not absolve the penal consequence envisaged under the Customs Act, 1962. If this proposition of the CESTAT is to be approved, then all illegal importers, if caught, will offer to pay a paltry sum as fine in lieu of redemption of the goods and re-export the same without suffering any penalty or custom duty for their attempt to violate the Customs Act, 1962” the court said.
Orissa HC
No Fresh GST Demand For Same Amount Without Credit For Reversed ITC: Orissa HC Sets Aside Tax Demand
Case Title : M/s. Manoja Kumar Nayak v. Commissioner Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise
Case Number : W.P.(C) No.12682 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 19
The Orissa High Court has set aside GST proceedings against an individual taxpayer, holding that once input tax credit (ITC) is reversed, the tax department cannot demand the same amount again without giving due credit for such reversal. “Once it is conceded by the Revenue that the amount of input tax credit for a sum of Rs.4,39,970/- has been reversed, raising demand to the same without giving due credit to such reversal is unethical and without authority of law. In such an event, since net tax effect would be 'zero', thereby no penalty would be imposable. This Court, therefore, would show indulgence in the matter as the Adjudicating Authority has traversed his jurisdiction by acting at his whims and fancies,” the Court said.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Upholds GST Penalty Order Despite Absence Of DIN, Says RFN Is Sufficient
Case Title : Mahesh Trivedi v Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5271/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (RAJ) 15
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a GST order communicated through statutorily recognised modes such as the GST portal, registered post or e-mail cannot be invalidated merely because it does not mention a Document Identification Number (DIN), where the communication carries a verifiable Reference Number (RFN). “Once service has been effected in any of the recognised statutory modes, we are of the view that the requirement of lawful communication clearly stands satisfied,” a division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed.
Rajasthan VAT Act Permits Search Of Residential Premises In Tax Evasion Cases: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Anil Sugar Candy Works v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12887/2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 17
The Rajasthan High Court has recently held that the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act does not prohibit searches at residential premises, provided the statutory requirements for search and seizure are strictly fulfilled. A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal referring to Section 75 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 observed, “Thus, the statute does not prohibit search of residential premises as such; however, the exercise of such power is conditioned upon strict fulfillment of the statutory requirements.”
CESTAT
CESTAT Chennai Quashes ₹2.83 Crore Service Tax Demand On IL&FS Water
Case Title : IL & FS Water Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40556/2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 216
In relief to IL&FS Water Ltd., the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a Rs. 2.83 crore service tax demand, holding that an indivisible works contract cannot be split to treat the goods component as “trading” and deny input tax credit. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar was dealing with a dispute arising from a water supply project executed for the Indian Oil Corporation at Paradip under a Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) model.
Case Title : M/s. ITC Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 20313 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 217
The Bangalore Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that no higher customs duty is payable on the imported “Monodisperse Aerosol Generator”, and set aside the Department's demand for differential duty along with interest and penalty. The Division Bench comprising Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member Pullela Nageswara Rao was hearing ITC Limited's appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had upheld reclassification of the product under a heading attracting higher duty.
Waste Mud From Refining Process Not Liable To Excise Duty: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s 3F Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 22096 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 218
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that “waste mud” (spent earth) generated during the refining of crude palm oil is not an excisable product under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act and is therefore not liable to Central Excise duty. A Division Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad set aside the duty demand and held that the adjudication rested on an invalid circular. The Tribunal ruled that involuntarily generated manufacturing waste cannot be treated as excisable goods merely on the ground of marketability.
No Service Tax On Non-Commercial Residential Construction: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : M/s Ashish Enterprises v. Commissioner, GST, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.70204 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 219
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 30 April held that service tax does not apply to construction services rendered for residential colonies not intended for commercial use. It also set aside the bulk of the demand on the ground of limitation. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. K. Choudhary and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed the appeal filed by Ashish Enterprises against the order confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 1.67 crore along with interest and penalty for the period 2009–2014.
Case Title : The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar (Preventive)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 95 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 220
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has partly allowed an appeal filed by The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., setting aside the duty demand on diesel oil supplied to a vessel. The tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting a certificate issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) certifying the supply as duty paid, without assigning any cogent reason. A bench of Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha set aside the demand of duty and interest on 49.431 MT of diesel oil supplied to vessel MT Arun Khetar Pal via Bunker Delivery Note dated March 13, 2008.
CESTAT Chennai Holds Tobacco Processing Not Manpower Supply, Allows Service Tax Refund
Case Title : Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 42414 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 221
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 28 April, held that processing unmanufactured tobacco for a client constitutes agricultural job work and not manpower supply service. A Bench comprising Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar and Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the appeal filed by Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. and granted refund of service tax. It held: “The appellant processes unmanufactured tobacco for or on behalf of their client which include incidental or auxiliary services related to agriculture. These services constitute an intermediate production process in relation to agriculture or agricultural produce. Consequently, the impugned services are eligible for exemption under the law discussed above, both pre and post the Negative List.”
Sugar Syrup Used In Biscuit Manufacturing Not Marketable, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s Sumo Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 28086 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 222
The Hyderabad Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that sugar syrup prepared and used captively in the manufacture of biscuits is not marketable in the form in which it emerges and is therefore not eligible for central excise duty. The Bench comprising Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi and Judicial Member Angad Prasad allowed the appeals filed by Sumo Foods Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the demand confirmed by the Department.
Case Title : M/s. Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85879 OF 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 223
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 5 May upheld the demand of duty, interest and penalty against Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to reverse the Special Additional Duty (SAD) component of CENVAT credit while transferring inputs “as such” between its units, holding that the plea of revenue neutrality is not applicable in such cases. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed that the assessee's conduct reflected conscious non-compliance and rejected the plea of revenue neutrality.
Case Title : Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals)
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20641 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 225
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has set aside a Rs. 17.53 lakh excise duty demand against Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the concrete manufactured by the company near the Thanneermukkom Barrage construction site in Kerala was “concrete mix” and not “Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC)” liable to duty. Judicial Member Dr. D.M. Misra and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi observed that the Revenue had failed to produce evidence showing that retarders and plasticizers typically associated with RMC production were used in the manufacturing process.
CENVAT Credit Allowed On Pollution-Control Infrastructure As Modernisation: CESTAT Ahmedabad
Case Title : Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 10149 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(AHM) 224
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 May held that CENVAT Credit on civil construction and works contract services used for establishing effluent treatment infrastructure in an existing factory is admissible, since compliance with pollution-control norms is a statutory obligation and an integral part of the manufacturing process. Judicial Member Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha held that settled law clearly recognises services availed for fulfilling statutory environmental obligations as admissible input services and allowed the appeal filed by Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. and set aside the demand of Rs. 16,67,562, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Bengaluru Upholds Service Tax On Employee Secondment From Foreign Parent Company
Case Title : M/s. ARM Embedded Technologies Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 900 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 226
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 24 April held that employees seconded by a UK-based parent company to its Indian subsidiary under a salary reimbursement arrangement would constitute “Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service” and would attract service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi partly allowed the appeal filed by ARM Embedded Technologies Pvt. Ltd, and upheld the service tax demand for the normal period but set aside penalties imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title : Teena Labs Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Medchal - GST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 26793 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 228
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job work arrangement between Teena Labs Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. could not be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service” merely because Aurobindo Pharma exercised production and quality control and reimbursed various expenses. The tribunal observed that, “Thus, what is apparent is that there is an effective control on production process, quality control, etc., however, it cannot be said that APL has taken over the entire facility of the appellant on rent along with machinery, manpower, raw material, associate services, etc.”
Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 50104 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 227
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi has recently held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's excise duty refund appeal as time-barred solely on the basis of the date mentioned in the appeal proforma, without examining its submissions and affidavit explaining the delay. A bench of Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, after finding that BHEL's appeal against rejection of its refund claims for the period 2011-12 to 2017-18 upto June 30, 2017 had been dismissed as being beyond the condonable period of 90 days.
Customs Cannot Deny Interest On Refunds By Calling Applications “Incomplete”: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : PNP POLYTEX PVT LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
Case Number : COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA-III
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 229
On 8 May, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs authorities cannot delay refund claims for years and later deny statutory interest by calling them “incomplete”. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati ruled that interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 becomes payable three months after the refund application is filed, even if the department later raises deficiency memos or seeks additional documents.
Case Title : R. S. Company Vs Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51496 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 230
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside an excise duty demand and penalties against R.S. Company and its partner in a gutka clandestine removal case. It found that the Commissioner relied on photocopies of six lorry receipts, DGGI re-quantification, and a formula based on alleged scented tobacco receipts without sufficient supporting evidence. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed: “The adjudicating authority, thereafter, has simply relied on the information supplied by DGGI and determined the demand of duty without examining the evidence.”
Authority For Advance Ruling
Electric Bus Rental Services With Operators Attract 18% GST As Electricity Not 'Fuel': Gujarat AAR
Case Title : JBM Ecolife Mobility Surat P Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/13
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has held that the rental of electric buses with operators by JBM Ecolife Mobility in Surat will attract 18% GST, ruling that electricity cannot be treated as “fuel” to claim a lower tax rate. The bench of Member (CGST) Vishal Malani and Member (SGST) Sushma Vora passed the ruling. JBM Ecolife Mobility operates 150 air-conditioned electric buses in Surat and is paid a fixed ₹59.29 per kilometre under its contract. It approached the Authority to determine whether its bus rental service would be taxed at 5%, 12% or 18% GST, specifically whether it could claim the lower rate available where the cost of fuel is included in the consideration.
Case Title : Sanjaykumar Ishwerlal Sadadiwala v. Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/14
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has recently ruled that coaching services provided by Surat-based Friends Classes to students of Standards 5 to 12 are taxable at 18% GST and do not qualify for exemption available to educational institutions. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Malani and SGST Member Sushma Vora held that the applicant did not fall within the definition of an “educational institution” under the GST exemption framework and therefore could not claim exemption from GST available to qualifying educational institutions.
Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAAR Upholds Denial Of ITC On Lease Rent For Industrial Land Used In Factory Construction
Case Title : M/s. Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2025/46
The Gujarat Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on lease rentals for land taken on a long-term lease for setting up a factory is blocked under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, as the provision bars credit on inputs and input services used for construction of immovable property. A Bench comprising SGST Member Arti Kanwar and CGST Member Sunil Kumar Mall dismissed the appeal by Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the denial of ITC on GST paid under reverse charge on lease rentals for land used for construction of factory premises.
GSTAT
No Anti-Profiteering Violation Where Works Contract Fully Executed After GST Rollout: GSTAT Delhi
Case Title : DG Anti-Profiteering v. Belhekar & Kale Associates
Case Number : NAPA/237/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 22
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi on 5 May closed anti-profiteering proceedings against Pune-based works contractor Belhekar & Kale Associates and held that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit required passing on since both procurement and execution of the contract took place after the rollout of GST. Technical Member Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the investigation report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) and held that no contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been established. The Tribunal observed: “despite sufficient opportunities having been afforded, the Applicant neither appeared before this Tribunal nor placed any written submissions on record, which means the applicant has nothing to say on the DGAP's report.”