LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 02 - November 08, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
10 Nov 2026 11:33 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT LTD.
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 40314/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court's order closing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order allowing PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd to claim a refund of ₹5.42 crore towards Special Additional Duty (SAD). The High Court had closed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order allowing PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd to claim a refund of ₹5.42 crore towards Special Additional Duty, holding that the challenge could be pursued only before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title : Arjun Flour Mills v. State of Odisha
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 8763 of 1994, not 1863 of 1994.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 349
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 4) held that the question concerning the power of State legislatures to impose additional sales tax, surcharge, or cess has lost its relevance following the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the laws under which the disputed taxes were imposed have since been replaced or substituted. Therefore, the question referred to the larger Bench no longer required adjudication.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Asahi India Glass Customs Order Over Untraceable Judicial Citations
Case Title : Asahi India Glass Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Customs Group III & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 5110 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 621
The Bombay High Court on 28 October set aside a customs order against Asahi India Glass Ltd., holding that the authority could not sustain its decision by relying on judicial citations that the Customs Department itself admitted could not be traced. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed the company's petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for fresh adjudication.
GST Paid Under Wrong Tax Head Cannot Trigger Recovery Without Evasion: Bombay High Court
Case Title : DHR Holding India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1214 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 637
The Bombay High Court on 30 October held that payment of GST under the wrong tax head, without any deliberate attempt to evade tax, does not justify invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, when the amount can be transferred to the correct tax head. A Division Bench comprising Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil allowed a petition filed by DHR Holding India Private Limited, holding that the GST department could transfer the tax paid under CGST and SGST to the IGST account instead of initiating recovery proceedings.
GST Appeal Limitation Must Be Calculated In Calendar Months, Not 120 Days: Bombay High Court
Case Title : United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 33751 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 640
The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law must be calculated in calendar months and cannot be treated as a fixed period of 120 days. A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil agreed with the company's contention that the limitation period could not be calculated as a fixed 120 days.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Summons Customs Chief Commissioner Over Appeals Filed Despite Monetary Limits
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs Exports v. Ms K G Exports
Case Number : CUSAA 176/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, to remain physically present at the next hearing to explain how instructions fixing monetary limits for filing appeals are being implemented uniformly across Commissionerates. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain passed the direction while hearing two appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) against CESTAT orders.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Customs Department's Appeals Against ₹175 Crore CVD Refund To Micromax
Case Title : Principal Commissioner of Customs (ACC Import), New Delhi v. Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number : CUSAA 34/2024, CUSAA 36/2024, CUSAA 38/2024, CUSAA 41/2024 & CUSAA 42/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1197
The Delhi High Court has dismissed five appeals filed by the Customs Department challenging the sanction of customs duty refunds to Micromax Informatics Limited, holding that the company had successfully established that it had not passed on the burden of countervailing duty (CVD) to its customers. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and CESTAT, which had ruled in favour of Micromax.
Case Title : Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2728/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1198
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the GST Department against a civil engineering company, holding that the failure to consider the company's request for additional time to submit documents violated the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Amit Sharma observed that the Department was required to consider the request for an extension of time before passing the impugned order.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection From Arrest To Man In GST ITC Fraud Probe
Case Title : Manshu Bansal v. Commissioner of Central GST, CGST Delhi (East), Anti Evasion
Case Number : Bail Application No. 4622/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1199
The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to a man accused of wrongful availment, utilisation and passing on of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through two firms in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud investigation. Justice Mini Pushkarna directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner, subject to his joining the investigation conducted by the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Department.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs v. Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number : CUSAA 152/2026, CUSAA 153/2026, CUSAA 154/2026 & CUSAA 155/2026
The Delhi High Court has dismissed four appeals filed by the Customs Department challenging the grant of statutory interest to Micromax Informatics Limited on delayed customs duty refunds. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that Micromax was entitled to statutory interest on the refund amounts, following CETSTA 's decision that the company was entitled to the principal refund amounts.
Case Title : PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST AND CX DELHI (SOUTH) v. M/S AIR INDIA LTD
Case Number : SERTA 33/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1205
The Delhi High Court has dismissed as not maintainable an appeal filed by the CGST Department against a CESTAT order concerning the taxability of services provided to Air India by computer reservation system (CRS) companies. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that the dispute concerns the taxability of the services, and the appeal therefore falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Delhi High Court Flags Mounting Demurrage Due To Customs Delay In Adjudicating Detained Goods Cases
Case Title : MR. NIYAMAT KHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, IGI AIRPORT & ANR.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 2323/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1206
The Delhi High Court has flagged delays by Customs authorities in adjudicating cases involving detained goods, observing that the delay cannot be used as a mode of punishment for passengers while demurrage charges continue to accumulate. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Niyamat Khan concerning goods detained by Customs at the Delhi airport.
Customs Can Examine Third-Party Payments To Verify Exporters' Duty Drawback Claims: Delhi High Court
Case Title : THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) v. M/S. G.D. MANGLAM EXIM PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS M/S. WELLDONE EXIM PVT. LTD.)
Case Number : CUSAA 92/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1207
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs authorities can examine whether payments received from third parties actually represent sale proceeds for exported goods while determining an exporter's entitlement to retain duty drawback. Referring to Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for duty drawback on exported goods, the court ruled, "The reference in Section 75 to “sale proceeds in respect of such goods” necessarily requires the Customs authorities, when the entitlement to drawback is put in issue, to examine whether the amounts relied upon as export realisations have the requisite nexus with the exports in question. The Customs authorities are not thereby exercising the regulatory jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank of India under FEMA. They are examining the statutory entitlement to retain a benefit granted under the Customs Act."
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Restrains GST Action Against Partner Over Firm's ₹16.21 Crore ITC Claim
Case Title : Shri Shiv Kumar Mittal v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/6027/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 34
The Gauhati High Court on 4 November passed an interim order in a petition filed by an individual partner of GM Coke Industries, restraining GST authorities from taking further action under a show cause notice proposing penalty under Section 122(1)(A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that separate penalty proceedings against a partner for allegedly wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by a partnership firm may not be necessary when proceedings for recovery of the disputed ITC have already been initiated against the firm.
GST Authorities Cannot Impose Penalty Contrary To Binding CBIC Circular: Gauhati High Court
Case Title : M/s G.M. Coke Industries v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(C)/6028/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 35
The Gauhati High Court on 4 November observed that GST authorities cannot impose penalties under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual receipt of goods or services when such action is prohibited by a binding CBIC circular. Justice Soumitra Saikia issued notice on a writ petition filed by G.M. Coke Industries, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing coke in Assam, and restrained the authorities from taking further action on a show-cause notice proposing recovery of Rs. 16.21 crore in allegedly ineligible ITC from it.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : R.J. Technologies v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Special Civil Application No. 13116 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 163
The Gujarat High Court on 28 October allowed a writ petition filed by R.J. Technologies, quashed the rejection of its application in Form GST SPL-02, and directed the authority to process the application within twelve weeks. A Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that tax authorities cannot reject an application for waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, without considering adjustments accepted on the GST portal that reduce the outstanding principal tax liability to nil.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Over 2-Hour Delay In Filing Income Tax Return
Case Title : Central Board of Direct Taxes v. M/s Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2024 (T-IT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 211
The Karnataka High Court on 15 October dismissed an appeal filed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and other Revenue authorities against an order condoning a delay of 2 hours, 38 minutes and 26 seconds in filing the income tax return of Century Joint Developments Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2019-20. A Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that a minimal delay in filing an income tax return, attributed to a technical glitch, did not justify a hyper-technical rejection of a request for condonation.
Karnataka High Court Revives Inquiry Against Tax Officers Over Wrong Customs Duty Exemption
Case Title : The Union of India v. Sri Suresh B Badas
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.3146/2018 (S-CAT)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 216
The Karnataka High Court on 29 October revived disciplinary proceedings against three Central Tax Superintendents over the alleged wrongful grant of customs duty exemption to imported tugs, setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) orders quashing the proceedings. A Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and Chillakur Sumalatha allowed three writ petitions filed by the Union of India and the concerned tax authorities, holding that the Tribunal could not examine the merits of the disciplinary charges at the threshold and that the allegations must be tested in a departmental inquiry.
Kerala HC
Payments Made Before Revised Penalty Orders Must Be Adjusted Under Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court
Case Title : P.I. Marketing Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 12460 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 207
The Kerala High Court on 29 October held that amounts already paid or recovered towards tax and penalty demands must be deducted when calculating settlement liability under the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2024, even if the payments preceded the revised demand orders. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. allowed a petition filed by P.I. Marketing Private Limited, holding that the State cannot deny credit for payments made towards the same liabilities merely because the appellate authority issued revised penalty orders later.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Appeal Filed On Next Working Day After Sunday Deadline Within Limitation: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : Atul Singh Garhi v. Commissioner CGST
Case Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 79
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 28 October held that when the last day of the condonable period for filing an appeal falls on a Sunday, an appeal filed on the next working day cannot be rejected as time-barred. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and the Commissioner (Appeals), which had rejected the appellant's service tax appeal as time-barred.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Orders GST Refund To Aruna Mills For Failure To Issue DRC-04 Acknowledgement
Case Title : M/s Aruna Mills v. The State Tax officer
Case Number : WP Nos.30908 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 335
The Madras High Court on 28 October allowed Aruna Mills' writ petitions, set aside four orders dated 27 March 2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, and directed the GST authorities to refund the amounts collected under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST). Justice N. Senthilkumar noted that the failure to issue Form GST DRC-04, the prescribed acknowledgement for payments made through Form GST DRC-03, can invalidate proceedings involving tax amounts collected during an inspection.
Madras High Court Upholds Disciplinary Action Against Officer For Exceeding GST Rectification Powers
Case Title : T. Uma v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number : W.A.No.3281 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 338
The Madras High Court, on 27 October, refused to interfere with disciplinary proceedings against State Tax officer T. Uma, who allegedly exceeded her statutory powers while passing rectification orders that substantially reduced tax demands against Tvl. Appaswamy Real Estates Limited. A Bench comprising Justices G. Jayachandran and E. Manoharan held that an officer's exercise of quasi-judicial powers does not shield her from disciplinary action where the charges disclose a prima facie case of misconduct, and dismissed Uma's appeal against the Single Judge's order allowing the enquiry to continue.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title : Sahil Chandna v. State of Haryana and Another
Case Number : CRWP No. 9885 of 2026 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 59
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently ruled that only the Commissioner can record "reasons to believe" before authorising an arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Reasons recorded by an Inspector cannot substitute the Commissioner's satisfaction. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal ruled, "The language used in Section 69 of the CGST Act, leaves no room to doubt that it is the 'Commissioner' and the 'Commissioner', alone, who is required to form an opinion, on the basis of credible material that a person has committed an offence under Section 132 of CGST Act and it is necessary to arrest such person for the alleged offence."
Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds VAT ITC Restrictions On Cotton Used In Interstate Sales
Case Title : M/s Fertichem Cotspin Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : VATAP-118-2017 (O&M)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 60
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 13 October upheld restrictions on claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) on cotton and products manufactured from goods specified in Schedule H of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, when sold in interstate trade, for periods covered by the 2008 amendment to the Act. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed appeals involving Fertichem Cotspin Ltd., Grospinz Fab Ltd. and Modern Rice Mills Ghanaur, while remitting other matters to the VAT Tribunal for reconsideration.
Case Title : M/s Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, Kapurthala v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Case Number : ITA No. 83 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 61
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that collecting service charges or generating a surplus does not, by itself, make the activities of a charitable institution commercial or disentitle it from income tax exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Authorities must examine whether charges collected for activities advancing an object of general public utility are on a cost basis, nominally above cost or significantly higher than the cost of providing the services, and whether the applicable monetary threshold is exceeded.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title : Ashirwad Agro Industries & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (M/B) No. 244 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 15
The Uttarakhand High Court has recently struck down the levy of development cess on agricultural produce brought from outside the State for manufacturing or processing, where no sale or purchase takes place within the market area. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay held that the first proviso to Section 27(c)(v) of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to this extent.
GSTAT
Case Title : Shaily Singh v. Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : APL/217/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 73
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 2 November observed that an automated portal warning cannot override the statutory exemption under Rule 138(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which permits certain short-distance movements of goods without Part-B vehicle details in an e-way bill. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the order quashing a penalty of Rs. 2,55,792 imposed on Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.
GSTAT Lucknow Remands IGST Credit Mismatch For Verification, Rejects ITC Claim U/S 16 Of UPGST Act
Case Title : M/s Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar v. Rakhi Singh, Deputy Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/106/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 74
On Wednesday, 4 November, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow, partly allowed an appeal filed by Ram Niwas Sunil Kumar against a tax demand arising from discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC) reported under different tax heads. A Bench of Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra held that a claim for ITC cannot be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of figures reported in the annual GST return.
Case Title : Reliant Buildup, Sangli v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra
Case Number : APL/3/PUN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(PUN) 75
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Pune, has held that a State Government department cannot alter the statutory GST rate through administrative directions fixing the tax component of a construction contract. It observed that deciding how much tax a co-operative society would bear within an approved contract price is a matter of pricing, not a determination of the applicable GST rate.
Chuna Used With Paan, Supari, Tobacco Classifiable As Slaked Lime, Attracts 5% GST: GSTAT Rajkot
Case Title : Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rajkot v. Babu Lime Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : APL/179/RJK/2026 to APL/185/RJK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(RAJ) 76
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Rajkot Bench, has held that chuna (lime) used with pan, supari and tobacco is classifiable as slaked lime attracting 5% GST, rejecting the Revenue's contention that it should be treated as a food preparation attracting 18% GST. A bench comprising Judicial Member Pramod Kumar Rai and Technical Member Kishori Lal held that adding water and fillers to slaked lime, without any chemical reaction, does not change its essential character as lime.
Case Title : Vishal Singh v. Jay Jay Bricks
Case Number : APL/144/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LKN) 77
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Bench, has recently held that the department need not prove an intention to evade tax to initiate confiscation proceedings when a taxpayer fails to account for taxable goods. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar observed that Section 130(1)(ii) of the GST Act does not require proof of such intent, unlike clauses (i) and (iv).
CESTAT
Foreign Suppliers Are Service Recipients, Commission Qualifies As Export Of Services: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : DSS Image Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51841 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 639
On 29 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that commission received from foreign suppliers for procuring orders and promoting their products in India qualifies as export of services when the foreign suppliers are the service recipients and the place of provision is outside India. A Bench comprising Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal filed by DSS Image Tech Pvt. Ltd., holding that the department had also wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation without establishing wilful suppression with intent to evade tax.
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Customs Broker Licence Suspension Over Four-Month Delay, Lack Of Urgency
Case Title : Navbharat Consolidation Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-I
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86938 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 640
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the suspension of a Customs Broker licence, finding that the department failed to demonstrate any urgency warranting immediate action. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar heard an appeal filed by Navbharat Consolidation Pvt. Ltd. against an order dated September 16, 2026, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The licence was suspended on August 31, 2026, although the department had received the offence report on April 27, 2026.
Loading Incidental To Transportation Cannot Attract Cargo Handling Service Tax: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : R.P.L. Projects Limited v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Varanasi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70231 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 641
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has ruled that transportation of goods cannot be classified as Cargo Handling Service merely because loading is involved in the process. Setting aside a service tax demand of ₹2.01 crore against R.P.L. Projects Limited, the tribunal held that coal transportation was the predominant activity, while loading was only incidental to it.
Honda Dealer's Sales Incentives, Customer Discounts Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Smart Cars Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70214 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 642
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that a car dealer extending customer discounts under promotional schemes floated by a manufacturer does not, by that act alone, render an independent taxable service to the manufacturer. A Bench of Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed, “We are, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that the appellant's act of extending a customer discount, or its decision to sell a vehicle at a price lower than the maximum selling price permitted under the dealership arrangement, constitutes an independent taxable service to HCIL. Such conduct forms part of the ordinary commercial operations of a dealer. The sharing or reimbursement of the commercial burden arising from a promotional scheme may affect the ultimate economics of the sale transaction, but does not, in the absence of an identifiable and independent service element, change the character of that transaction.”
CESTAT Mumbai Rejects Customs Reclassification Brown Rice Protein Powder, Quashes ₹85.28 Lakh Demand
Case Title : Unibourne Food Ingredients v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-I)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 86886 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 643
On 2 November, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, set aside the reclassification of Brown Rice Protein Powder imported by Unibourne Food Ingredients and quashed a differential customs duty demand of Rs. 85,28,035. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban allowed the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), Nhava Sheva, holding that the Revenue had failed to establish that the imported product warranted classification under a different tariff heading.
Case Title : ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41653 and 41654 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 645
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that the requirement to file only one refund claim for every quarter does not restrict an SEZ unit from including service tax paid outside that quarter in its claim. The notification exempts specified services received by Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units and used for their authorised operations from service tax. Where the exemption is claimed by way of refund, the unit must file only one claim for each quarter. However, this does not mean that the claim can include only tax paid during that quarter.
CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside ₹7.24 Crore Service Tax Demand Over Assumption-Based Tax Claims
Case Title : G. S. Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 70017 of 2025 and 70016 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 644
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a ₹7.24 crore service tax demand against a civil construction contractor after finding that the Department had raised several demands merely on assumptions. It held that the Department could not raise these demands without identifying the contracts or transactions giving rise to the alleged tax liability.
Technical Services For Japan-Based Entity's Rajasthan Project Qualify As Export: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title : M/s Currie & Brown Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Delhi
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53148 OF 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 646
On 4 November, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, held that technical services provided to an overseas entity for a factory construction project in Rajasthan qualified as export of services and were not liable to service tax in India. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao allowed the appeal, holding that the services fell under Consulting Engineer Services rather than Real Estate Agent Services and that their place of provision was outside India.
Foreign Bank Charges On Export Proceeds Not Taxable Without Service Relationship: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : M/s AKR Textile v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40749 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 647
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 4 November held that exporters cannot be treated as recipients of banking services merely because foreign banks deduct charges while transmitting export proceeds, in the absence of a service-provider and service-recipient relationship. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed three appeals filed by garment exporters AKR Textile, Poppys Knitwear Private Limited and N.S.P. Knitting Mills, and set aside the Service Tax demands, interest and penalties imposed on them.