LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 25 - May 31, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
3 Jun 2026 10:18 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, Gujarat v. M/s Reliance Industries Limited
Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 199
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd. in its long-running customs classification dispute, holding that imported n-Hexane cannot be treated as motor spirit merely because its flash point is below 25°C. The court held that the Customs Department failed to prove that the product satisfied all conditions required for such classification, including suitability for use as fuel in spark ignition engines.
Case Title : COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Versus M/S DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.
Case Number : Diary No. 24478-2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on an appeal filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) challenging a CESTAT ruling that upheld a service tax demand of over ₹45 crore. The demand relates to upfront fees received under long-term lease arrangements for property development linked to the Delhi Metro project. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice and agreed to hear the case on merits. "Issue notice on the Civil Appeal as well as on the application for condonation of delay."
Case Title : STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs JSW STEEL LTD AND ANR
Case Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.18141-18142/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 201
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court ruling directing Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs 47.47 crore in electricity duty to JSW Steel, upholding the company's claim to exemption till August 2019 under the State's incentive scheme. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Maharashtra's special leave petitions challenging the April 2 judgment. “We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the respondents/caveators. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order(s). The Special Leave Petitions are hence dismissed.”
Supreme Court Upholds 28% GST On Online Money Gaming, Fantasy Sports; 2023 Amendments Retrospective
Case Title : DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE (HQS) Vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 Diary No. 30797 / 2023
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the GST framework taxing online gaming, fantasy sports, and casino transactions involving staking on uncertain outcomes, affirming the 28% levy applicable to such taxable actionable claims. It also held that the 2023 GST amendments, which specifically brought online money gaming, casinos, and horse racing within the revised tax framework, are merely clarificatory and therefore apply retrospectively.
HIGH COURTS
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Protects IndiGo From Coercive Action In ₹458 Crore GST Dispute
Case Title : InterGlobe Aviation Limited v. Additional Commissioner CGST South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7271/2026
CITATION: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 547
The Delhi High Court on Friday protected InterGlobe Aviation, which operates India's largest airline IndiGo, from coercive action over a ₹458.26 crore goods and services tax (GST) demand linked to compensation received from a foreign engine supplier. A division bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul issued notice to the GST department and granted interim protection to the airline after observing that, prima facie, the amount received by IndiGo appeared to be “compensation”, and not “supply”.
Case Title : Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2341/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 553
The Delhi High Court on May 20 quashed a customs communication issued to Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. indicating differential duty liability of ₹3.20 crore, after the Customs Department stated that it would issue a show cause notice within four weeks. A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul noted, “In consideration of the statement made by Mr. Naushad for issuance of a show cause notice within four weeks, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 12.12.2025, with no finding on impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 owing to Mr. Naushad‟s statement as recorded in our order dated 16.04.2026.”
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : Amit Engineers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : CWP No. 3461 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP)20
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has quashed a GST show cause notice issued to Amit Engineers after finding that the notice was issued despite an earlier Advance Ruling that had attained finality between the parties. A bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma observed: “in view of the finality attached to the Advance Ruling between the parties, the show cause notice dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) was without foundation. In view of the finality of the advance ruling between the parties, the notice is not sustainable and nothing is required to be adjudicated with respect to Advance Ruling and for existence Advance Ruling, Notice has to be treated as non-est. In such a situation, when fate of notice is apparent on face of record there will be no justification to relegate the petitioner to face proceeding on this count”.
CESTAT
Case Title : RB Seth Shreeram Narsingdas v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 23062 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 284
The Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT has held that Customs authorities can rely on subsequently obtained documents to revisit self-assessed export shipping bills if those documents reveal wrong declarations made at the time of export. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi observed: “Essentially, on the issue of whether in the case of re-assessment, the department can resort to various other information, which came to their knowledge subsequently and demand differential duty, we find that they can rely on additional documents, which are relevant and also indicating wrong declaration at the time of export covered under self-assessed shipping bills.”
Exporter Can't Be Denied CENVAT Credit Solely For Lack Of Service Tax Registration: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title : M/s IVY Comptech Pvt Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. ST/26080/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 285
The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax registration is not a pre-condition for taking CENVAT credit where a taxpayer was exclusively engaged in the export of services and not liable to pay service tax. A bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held a plain reading of the statutory framework did not support the department's stand that such credit could be denied solely because the taxpayer had not obtained registration.
Case Title : GX India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 51799, 51800 & 51841 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 283
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that Optical Network Terminals (ONT/ONU) and Optical Line Terminals (OLT) imported by GX India Pvt. Ltd. are machines used to receive and transmit data. It rejected the company's classification of ONT/ONU as “subscriber end equipment” and OLT under the residual “other” category. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao partly allowed GX India's appeals. It remanded the company's exemption claims to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
67% Service Tax Abatement Cannot Be Denied For Omission In ST-3 Returns: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s. Singh Construction Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76819 of 2016
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 286
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 22 May held that substantive benefit of 67% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST cannot be denied merely because the taxpayer failed to claim the benefit in its ST-3 returns, particularly when the record admitted use of materials in execution of construction services. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan set aside the service tax demand, interest and penalty imposed on Singh Construction Corporation after finding that the taxpayer had already paid tax in excess of its actual liability upon extending the eligible abatement.
CESTAT Upholds CST Demand, ₹6.43 Crore Penalty On Kedia Vanaspathi, Rejects Consignment Sale Claim
Case Title : M/s. Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number : CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2011
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 287
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12 May 2026 upheld the tax demand and penalty against Kedia Vanaspathi Ltd., holding that a dealer seeking exemption under Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 must prove, with prescribed evidence, that inter-State movement of goods arises from consignment transfers and not sales. President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao dismissed the appeals and confirmed the demand after holding that the company failed to prove that the transactions were consignment transfers.
CESTAT Allahabad Says Customs Cannot Reassess Value Of Goods After Clearance For Home Consumption
Case Title : Uttam Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.70027 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 290
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently set aside a customs duty demand of over ₹10.22 crore against Uttam Steel Alloys after finding multiple flaws in the department's case, including its attempt to enhance the value of goods after they had already been cleared for home consumption. A coram of Judicial Member P K Choudhary and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar held that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they cease to retain the character of imported goods, making the Customs Valuation Rules inapplicable.
Case Title : Abhishek Exporters v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51057 of 2025 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 289
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi has recently held that no central excise duty could be levied on the domestic sale of marble slabs and tiles by Abhishek Exporters, a 100% export-oriented unit, after finding that cutting imported marble blocks into such products during 2002 to August 2005 did not amount to manufacture. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan partly allowed appeals filed by Abhishek Exporters and connected appellants against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹3.07 Crore Service Tax Demand, Upholds Cenvat Credit On Running Bills
Case Title : M/s. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Commissioner of Central GST Commissionerate- Udaipur
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50823 OF 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 291
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside a service tax demand of more than ₹3.07 crore against Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board, along with interest and penalties, in a dispute over availment of Cenvat credit on running account bills and measurement books. A bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked and that credit could not be denied where receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed.
WhatsApp Service of SCN Not Recognised Under Central Excise Law: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Sridhar V Naidu v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54731 OF 2023
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 292
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on Monday held that service of a show cause notice through WhatsApp is not a legally recognised mode of service under the Central Excise Act. It set aside a service tax demand of ₹2.28 lakh raised against a person engaged in services relating to sale of advertisement space in print media, also finding that the bulk of the demand was time-barred and the balance unsustainable for want of evidence of fraud or wilful suppression.
Case Title : Unnati Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.51812 of 2025
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 293
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has recently held that the export of the pharmaceutical product in question containing 1% Ergotamine did not require prior clearance from the Narcotics Commissioner, setting aside a ₹50,000 penalty imposed on customs broker Unnati Cargo. The single-member bench of Judicial Member Binu Tamta held that the product could at best be treated as a preparation of Ergotamine and not as “Ergotamine and its salts,” the category requiring prior clearance.
Case Title : Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Udaipur
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 50853, 50854 & 50898 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 294
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a more than ₹7.18 crore demand, along with interest and penalties, raised against Hindustan Zinc Limited over electricity wheeled out from its captive power plant to sister concerns and the state distribution utility. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar held that the reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to such electricity amounted to non-availment of credit.
Case Title : Vikash Security Services v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51720 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 295
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has recently held that the tax department cannot sustain a service tax demand by invoking the extended limitation period solely on the basis of discrepancies between service tax returns and third-party TDS/ITR data. The tribunal held the department must independently verify whether taxable services were actually rendered before raising such a demand. It accordingly set aside a ₹7.67 lakh demand against Vikash Security Services.
Statutory CAMPA Deposits Not Consideration For Taxable Service Under Finance Act: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax, Indore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 54719 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 296
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 25 May held that mandatory Net Present Value (NPV) deposits made into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) for obtaining forest clearance cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. and set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 7.64 crore along with interest and penalties.
Case Title : M/s Hero Honda Motors Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 60153 of 2013
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 297
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has a wide ambit and includes services having even an indirect nexus with manufacturing or business activities. Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar allowed a batch of appeals filed by Hero MotoCorp Ltd (formerly Hero Honda Motors Ltd) and set aside the demand raised by the Department.
Case Title : M/s Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Customs,Airport & Air Cargo Commissionerate, Kolkata
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.75677 of 2020
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 298
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 26 May held that franchise fees, advertisement and promotional expenses, and corporate marketing fees paid under brand licensing arrangements for Tommy Hilfiger and French Connection eyewear are not includible in the assessable value of imported goods. Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan reasoned that the expenses are not linked to the import transaction or a condition of sale under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and set aside a customs duty demand against Sterling Meta-Plast India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title : M/s. M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 75303 of 2026
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 300
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed an appeal by M.P. Mica Enterprises Private Limited, holding that customs authorities could not apply laboratory findings from two live consignments of imported mica to 72 past consignments without independent evidence that the earlier imports were identical. A bench of Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan, however, upheld the reclassification of the two live consignments under Customs Tariff Heading 6814 and the consequential differential duty demand.
Case Title : Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai II Commissionerate
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41355 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 299
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has set aside a customs order confiscating sanitary napkin imports worth over ₹2.12 crore. It found that the adjudicating authority failed to properly examine the importer's claim that it qualified as an MSME, along with other contentions on the applicability of BIS compliance norms. A bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the Commissioner's order could not be sustained.
Case Title : Ravi Dhanwariya v. Commissioner of Customs Export, ICD TKD, New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 51731 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 302
The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside a ₹3 lakh penalty imposed on a customs broker in a case relating to the alleged overvaluation of export goods by Sharp Enterprises. The tribunal held that there was nothing on record to show that he was involved in, or had knowledge of, the alleged overvaluation. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao observed: “There is also nothing on record to show that the appellant had knowledge that the export goods were overvalued.”
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Order Classifying Kitchen And Household Accessories As Furniture Parts
Case Title : Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD Tughlakabad
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50541 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 301
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside an order classifying imported kitchen and wardrobe storage products as furniture parts and held that they are classifiable as kitchen and household articles or furniture fittings under Chapters 73 and 83 of the Customs Tariff. A bench of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan allowed the appeal filed by Inox Decor Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, which had classified the imported goods as furniture parts.
Case Title : RRB Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 41599/2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 303
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has set aside a ₹1.59 crore service tax demand raised against RRB Energy Ltd on payments made to overseas entities for technology transfer and wind turbine development services. The tribunal held that the department failed to establish that the transactions were taxable as Intellectual Property Service or Consulting Engineering Services. A coram of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar passed the order while allowing RRB Energy's appeal. The appeal challenged an order that had confirmed service tax demands, interest, and penalties on services received from entities based in the Netherlands and Germany.
Case Title : Simplilearn Solutions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 21314 of 2018
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(BAN) 304
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by a majority ruling, has held that when an adjudication order is received by an authorized representative of an assessee, it amounts to valid service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing an appeal begins from the date the representative receives the order. The case arose from a refund claim filed by Simplilearn Solutions Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. When the company challenged that decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed its appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
Case Title : Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Alwar
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 51899 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 305
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has set aside a ₹22.59 lakh CENVAT credit demand, along with interest and penalty, raised against Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. over waste and scrap that arose during the manufacture of scooters, motorcycles, and their parts. A bench of Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed Honda's appeal and set aside the impugned order. The bench observed, “Waste and scrap is never manufactured by any manufacturer. It is not even a byproduct. It arises in the course of manufacture of the final product.”
CESTAT Chennai Backs Load-Port CE Certificate Over Local CE Report, Restores Declared Import Value
Case Title : Shri Hari Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 41684 of 2015
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 306
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside Customs authorities' enhancement of the value of imported second-hand machinery after finding that the enhancement was based on a local Chartered Engineer's certificate that did not disclose the basis for the revised valuation. A bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao observed that Customs authorities had discarded the load-port Chartered Engineer's certificate relied upon by the importer and adopted the valuation contained in a local Chartered Engineer's certificate without sufficient justification.
Case Title : Punjab Advertising Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 2671 of 2012
CITATION : 2026LLBiz CESTAT(CHA) 307
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has partly allowed a batch of appeals filed by Punjab Advertising Co. It held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements formed part of the taxable value of the advertising services provided by it. At the same time, it held that the value of printed flex material supplied by Sonia Plastics could not be included in the value of the taxable service. The decision was delivered by a division bench of Judicial Member S. S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar.
GSTAT
GSTAT Delhi Upholds Anti-Profiteering Order Against Builder, Directs ₹63.93 Lakh Refund
Case Title : DG Anti Profiteering v. Siddha Infradev LLP
Case Number : NAPA/138/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(DEL) 23
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has upheld anti-profiteering proceedings against Siddha Infradev LLP and directed the builder to refund ₹63.93 lakh, along with 18% interest, to nine eligible homebuyers after finding that it failed to pass on the benefit of additional input tax credit in its Kolkata housing project. A single-member bench of Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta, ruled, “Procedural delays by a statutory authority, in the absence of any prescribed consequence for lapse of such timeline, cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive rights of consumers.”
Authority For Advance Ruling
Gujarat AAR Declines To Answer GIFT SEZ Co-Developer's GST Zero-Rating Query On SEZ Supplies
Case Title : In Re: Waystar Properties LLP
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/19
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has declined to answer whether endorsement by the Specified Officer is mandatory for claiming zero-rated GST treatment on supplies involving Special Economic Zone entities and whether alternative documentary evidence could suffice. It held that the applicant's queries fell outside the scope of advance ruling jurisdiction. A bench of CGST Member Vishal Muni and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling on an application by Waystar Properties LLP, a co-developer in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT SEZ).
Case Title : In Re: Apar Industries Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/15
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that Apar Industries Ltd. can avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and input services used for setting up a Continuous Catenary Vulcanization (CCV) tower at its manufacturing facility. The tower is used in the manufacture of insulated electrical cables. A bench comprising CGST Member Vishal M. Ladani and SGST Member Subham Roy passed the ruling in an application filed by Apar Industries Ltd.
Gujarat AAR Rules 'Black Mineral Water' Classifiable As Mineral Water, Taxable At 5% GST
Case Title : In Re: Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/16
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) on 8 May 2026 held that “Black Mineral Water” marketed under the brand “ALVA” by Oxyhydra Beverages Pvt. Ltd. qualifies as mineral water under HSN 22011010 and attracts GST at 5%. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Varma and CGST Member Vishal Malani held: “The applicant's product contains added minerals only and contains no flavouring or sweeteners & therefore the product squarely fits within the scope of HSN 22011010.”
Other Developments
Centre Temporarily Waives Customs Duty On Cotton Imports Till October 31
The Centre on Saturday temporarily waived customs duty and Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) on cotton imports for a five-month period beginning June 1, 2026. A notification issued by the Department of Revenue said cotton falling under tariff heading 5201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, will be exempt from the whole of the customs duty leviable under the tariff schedule as well as the whole of the AIDC.