LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 05 - October 11, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
13 Oct 2026 7:30 PM IST
SUPREME COURT
Tax Classification Depends On Form Of Goods At Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court
Case Title : Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number : Civil Appeal Nos. 9788–9789 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 327
The Supreme Court has held that a product must be classified for tax purposes in the form in which it is sold, rather than on the basis of what a consumer may later turn it into. “The tax authorities are bound to look at what is supplied and not at what is the 'end use' of the good,” a Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Arun Palli observed while dismissing the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Department's appeals over the classification of Cadila Health Care Ltd.'s 'GRD Powder' and 'GRD Mix'.
Case Title : BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CGST
Case Number : DIARY NO. - 53103/2026
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.'s special leave petition challenging a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai order that partly upheld service tax demands on charges collected from life insurance policyholders. The Tribunal, in its April 10, 2026 order, set aside service tax demands on surrender, discontinuation and foreclosure charges, relying on its earlier rulings in similar cases involving life insurance companies.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Supplementary Deed Changing Payment Terms Not Fresh Conveyance For Stamp Duty: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Om Shivam Builders Private Limited v. Joint District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raigad & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4682 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 549
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that a supplementary deed that only changes the manner of satisfying an already agreed consideration cannot be treated as a fresh conveyance for imposing stamp duty. Justice Amit Borkar set aside a stamp duty demand of ₹21.08 lakh and penalty of ₹51.18 lakh against Om Shivam Builders Private Limited. The Court held that the Stamp Authority must first establish that a document contains a transaction chargeable to stamp duty before proceeding to value the property mentioned in it.
Case Title : Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 987 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 551
The Bombay High Court on 29 September held that educational institutions cannot claim property tax exemption merely because they are run by a charitable trust or enjoy minority institution status, and must establish that their premises are used solely for charitable purposes to claim exemption for each financial year. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed a petition filed by Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust challenging property tax demands raised by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) against its educational institutions in Pune.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Quashes ₹1.68 Crore GST Demand Against SREI Equipment Finance After CIRP
Case Title : SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA No. 6268 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 240
The Calcutta High Court on 1 October allowed SREI Equipment Finance Limited's petition and quashed the Rs. 1.68 crore GST demand raised for alleged excess availment of integrated goods and services tax (IGST) input tax credit on imported goods for FY 2021-22. Justice Aryak Dutt held that tax authorities cannot initiate or continue proceedings for pre-resolution plan dues that were not lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), as approval of the resolution plan extinguishes such liabilities.
Delhi HC
Later DRC-01 Date Alone Cannot Make GST SCN Time-Barred: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Aparna Collection v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3449/202
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1067
The Delhi High Court has held that a delay in generating Form GST DRC-01, an electronic summary of a GST show-cause notice, does not by itself make the underlying notice time-barred if the substantive notice was issued within the prescribed period. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was dealing with two petitions filed by a proprietorship concern challenging proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court Sends Importer To Customs Appellate Remedy Over 9-Year Assessment Delay
Case Title : Kuku Overseas v. Commissioner Of Customs & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7322/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1074
The Delhi High Court has relegated an importer to the statutory appellate remedy after adjudication orders were passed in respect of its provisional customs assessments, which the importer had challenged on the ground of a delay of over nine years. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that the writ petition could not be kept pending merely because the Supreme Court was examining the larger issue concerning delay in adjudication proceedings.
Case Title : Siya Seth Proprietor - Spherion Solutions v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 14095/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1076
The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain writ petitions challenging penalties imposed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, observing that questions concerning limitation, the competence of the Proper Officer and the nature of the petitioners' liability should be examined by the statutory appellate authority. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was dealing with three connected writ petitions arising out of a common adjudication order dated March 25, 2026.
Delhi High Court Upholds VAT Refund To Taxpayer After Return Accepted Under Self-Assessment
Case Title : Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes v. M/S Uno International
Case Number : VAT APPEAL 2/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1077
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT Act) where the return has been accepted under the self-assessment mechanism and no proceedings for assessment, reassessment or audit have been initiated. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes against an order of the Delhi Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal directing refund to M/s Uno International.
Case Title : Ubaid Khan v. Union Of India Through The Secretary & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 14228/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1078
The Delhi High Court has held that a separate show-cause notice under Section 129DD(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required when the Revisional Authority proposes to enhance the penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation, or to confiscate goods of greater value, but is not required merely when the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Revisional Authority (RA) under Section 129DD of the Customs Act in a case concerning the seizure of 2 kg of gold at the Delhi airport.
Case Title : Ranpreet Singh v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(C) 1913/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1079
The Delhi High Court has held that a person cannot belatedly challenge the condition requiring payment of customs duty for release of confiscated gold after having failed to challenge the original adjudication order imposing that condition. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition seeking to quash customs duty of ₹2,71,193 and detention charges of ₹2,02,842 imposed upon Petitioner in respect of a 98-gram gold kada detained at the Delhi airport.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/s Jeans Knit Private Limited
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 966 OF 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 185
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Revenue cannot extend the statutory limitation for filing a GST appeal by relying on delayed intra-departmental communication of an adjudication order. It held that the limitation period has to be reckoned from the issuance of the order and cannot be left open-ended. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha observed that Section 107(2) of the CGST Act gives the Revenue six months from the communication of the adjudication order to apply to the appellate authority, while Section 107(4) permits condonation of delay only for a further period of one month.
Kerala HC
Kerala High Court Upholds GST Recovery Against Satwa Solutions For Failure To Raise Timely Objection
Case Title : Satwa Solutions v. State Tax Officer
Case Number : WA NO. 1886 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 192
The Kerala High Court on 26 September refused to interfere with GST recovery proceedings against Satwa Solutions and upheld the dismissal of its writ petition challenging the proceedings arising from a statutory notice and subsequent final order. A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji held that the taxpayer had failed to raise its objection to the notice at the appropriate stage.
Kerala High Court Quashes GST Notice Issued Before Audit Findings Were Finalised
Case Title : The Alleppey Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Anr.
Case Number : WP(C) No. 30354 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 194
The Kerala High Court has held that a GST show cause notice issued on the basis of preliminary audit observations, before the audit findings attain finality, cannot be sustained. The court also held that tax authorities must consider a taxpayer's reply to discrepancies before finalising the audit findings. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was hearing a petition filed by The Alleppey Company Ltd., challenging a GST show cause notice issued despite its requests for additional time to respond to audit observations.
Case Title : V.P. Sugathan v. Travancore Devaswom Board
Case Number : WP(C) NO. 42585 OF 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 195
The Kerala High Court has held that a supplier's statutory obligation to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) does not automatically entitle the supplier to recover the tax separately from the recipient of the service. “The liability of a supplier to discharge the tax payable under the statute and the question as to whether the supplier is entitled to pass on the burden of such tax to the recipient are distinct and separate matters," the court ruled.
Madras HC
GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Has No Impact On ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Of CGST Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title : Syed Ahamed Ibrahim v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (RAL) (FAC), Ambattur Zone
Case Number : WP No. 33980 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 296
The Madras High Court has held that making the mandatory pre-deposit for filing a GST appeal does not, by itself, require unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) blocked under Rule 86A of the GST Rules. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy clarified that although the pre-deposit results in a deemed stay on recovery of the balance demand under Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), it does not affect a separate blocking order under Rule 86A, and disposed of a petition filed by Syed Ahamed Ibrahim, proprietor of Tvl. Royal Steel Traders, challenging the blocking of Rs. 28,15,364 in his Electronic Credit Ledger.
Madras High Court Quashes GST Notice To Queen Mira School, Says Assessment Must Precede Recovery
Case Title : The Managing Director, M/s.Queen Mira International School v. Union of India
Case Number : WP(MD) NO. 27719 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 300
The Madras High Court on 24 September quashed a show cause notice issued to Queen Mira International School, while granting the department liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Justice C. Saravanan held that the GST authorities must first assess the tax liability of an unregistered person under the prescribed statutory mechanism before proceeding against such person for tax recovery.
Time-Barred GST Refund Claim Cannot Trigger Deficiency Memo: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. L.S. Pacific wood Tech pvt. ltd. v. Commercial Tax officer
Case Number : WP No. 32615 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 301
The Madras High Court has held that a GST deficiency memo cannot be issued merely because a refund application is time-barred, as such a memo is meant to address a remediable defect in the application. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on 1 September, disposed of a deficiency memo issued to L.S. Pacific Wood Tech Pvt. Ltd. after it sought a refund under Section 54 of the GST enactments. The Bench observed that “a deficiency memo cannot be issued on the ground that the refund application is time barred.”
Customs Dispute Over Car, Cash Confiscation Go To CESTAT, Not Revision Authority: Madras High Court
Case Title : S. Michael Kennadi v. The Revision Authority Government of India
Case Number : W.P.(MD) No. 22231 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 303
The Madras High Court on 1 October held that a customs dispute concerning confiscation of a vehicle and Indian currency seized in connection with alleged gold smuggling has to be challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a revision application before the Central Government. Justice C. Saravanan granted S. Michael Kennadi liberty to approach the CESTAT against the First Appellate Authority's order, while declining to interfere with the Revision Authority's decision rejecting his revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act.
Authority For Advance Ruling
GST Not Payable On Amounts Recovered From Employees For Canteen Meals: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/36
The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling has ruled that GST is not payable on amounts recovered by Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from employees towards canteen meals at its Indrad plant, R&D facility and corporate office. The AAR held that the deductions made from employees do not amount to a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The Authority observed, “We hold that the deduction made by the applicant from the employees who are availing food in the factory/corporate office would not be considered as a 'supply' under the provisions of section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017.”
GSTAT
GSTAT Ernakulam Holds 7-Day Limit Mandatory For Penalty Orders, Quashes Order Passed After 445 Days
Case Title : GMG Electric, Kochi v. Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala
Case Number : APL/33/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (EKM) 48
The Ernakulam Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), on 16 September held that the seven-day time limit under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for passing a penalty order is mandatory. A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram allowed the appeal filed by GMG Electric, Kochi against the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), SGST Department, Kerala, and set aside the penalty order passed against the company.
Case Title : M/s Jai Enterprises v. Dr Anupama Goyal, Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Kanpur & Ors.
Case Number : APL/82/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (LCK) 49
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 16 September held that tax and penalty cannot be sustained merely on an inference that goods had been transported earlier or that e-way bills had been reused without evidence establishing either. A Two-Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar allowed Jai Enterprises' appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeals), Kanpur, which had upheld a demand of Rs. 6,62,077 under the Central GST/UP GST Acts.
Commissioner's Approval Alone Cannot Sustain Departmental Appeal Below ₹20 Lakh: GSTAT Ghaziabad
Case Title : Sandeep Tiwari v. Gainwell Commosales Private Limited
Case Number : (Filing No) 2026109301001667
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (GHA) 50
On 1 October, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ghaziabad, held that a departmental appeal cannot be maintained when the disputed tax demand is below the prescribed monetary limit unless the Revenue establishes a recognised exception to the limit. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi and Technical Member Sungita Sharma dismissed the Revenue's appeal involving a disputed amount of Rs. 11.88 lakh at the threshold, without examining its merits.
CESTAT
Case Title : M/s SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70004 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 595
On 1 October, the Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that tax paid by mistake on an exempt service cannot be retained by the Revenue. Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary directed the Revenue to refund Rs. 36,92,166 to SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. with 12% annual interest from the respective dates of deposit until payment. It also directed that the refund be made within three months.
Case Title : M/s Indian Chamber of Commerce v. Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeal-I), Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75146 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (KOL) 596
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has set aside a ₹70.45 lakh Service Tax demand on grants received by the Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) from Central and State Governments. The tribunal held that the grants were not consideration for providing a taxable service and were more in the nature of reimbursement. The bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan found no evidence that ICC provided “Business Exhibition Service” to the governments or raised invoices and received the grants as consideration. ICC was also required to account for how the grants were spent and submit utilisation certificates.
CENVAT Credit On Reverse Charge Service Tax To Be Refunded In Cash Under CGST Act: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Northern Coalfields Limited v. Commissioner of Central GST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 54790, 54791, 54792, 54795 & 54796 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 597
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has held that any CENVAT credit accruing to Northern Coalfields Ltd. on payment of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism has to be refunded in cash under Section 142 of the CGST Act after the GST regime came into force. The ruling came in a batch of five appeals filed by Northern Coalfields against service tax demands on payments made to the Madhya Pradesh government towards Rural Infrastructure and Road Development Tax and Forest Transit Fee.
Case Title : Amsons Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 87945 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 598
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 1 October held that an appeal cannot be rejected for non-production of proof of mandatory pre-deposit when the appellate authority itself has recorded that the required amount was deposited. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member M.M. Parthiban set aside an order rejecting an appeal filed by Amsons Tours & Travels Pvt Ltd and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits.
Providing Access To Government Data Through Its Portal Not OIDAR Service: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : MP Online Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 50418 of 2017, 51646 of 2018 & 52763 o19
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 599
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has set aside service tax demands against MP Online Ltd., holding that the company did not provide Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval (OIDAR) services merely by operating a portal through which Madhya Pradesh Government data could be accessed. The Bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao held that MP Online only provided a network through which government data could be accessed by government officers and citizens.
Case Title : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 76944 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 600
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has held that civil work billed according to the work performed could not be treated as “Manpower Service” where the contractor's billing was not based on the number of workers or man-days deployed. The tribunal found that the consideration was linked to the civil work carried out at the railway siding, rather than the manpower deployed.
Case Title : Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Vijayawada
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 30185 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(HYD) 601
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad has held that deletion of acid value and total carotenoid parameters from a customs exemption notification did not mean that refined or processed palmolein would qualify as “Crude Palm Oil” for concessional customs duty. The Bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar observed that the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods failed to meet parameters that were no longer part of the notification. The importer, however, still had to establish that the goods were actually Crude Palm Oil to claim the benefit.
Case Title : Shri R. Dewakar v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport, Imports)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 263 of 2011
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 602
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 6 October held that importing a motorcycle in separate parts through different ports cannot defeat the customs duty and restrictions applicable to a complete vehicle when the evidence establishes that the consignments form a single motorcycle. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar partially allowed an appeal filed by R. Dewakar, proprietor of Sri Vinayaka Enterprises, against the customs demand on a Suzuki Hayabusa that he imported in dismantled form through Chennai and Tuticorin ports.
Contract Manufacture Of Alcoholic Liquor For Another Entity Attracts Service Tax: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : M/s Agribiotech Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Alwar
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 52725, 52726, 52727 of 2019; 50235 of 2021; 51010 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 603
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has held that manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption undertaken by one entity on behalf of another is liable to service tax after alcoholic liquor was excluded from the negative-list entry with effect from June 1, 2015. Relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the tribunal held, "We find that section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 deals with the negative list of the services. The sub clause act effectively upto 31.05.2015 which described as “any process amounting to manufacture for production of goods w.e.f. 01.06.2015 it stipulates that service by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture for production of goods excluding liquor in human consumption which means that the manufacture of production of goods of alcoholic liquor for human consumption is outside the ambit of the exemption from payment of service tax”.
GTA Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded From Transporter If Recipient Paid Under RCM: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s North East Carriers Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Guwahati
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75725 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 604
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that service tax on Goods Transport Agency services was payable by recipient companies under the reverse charge mechanism where they paid the freight. The court held that demanding the same tax from the transporter again would amount to double taxation where the recipients had discharged the liability. “Thus, we find that as per notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, in respect of transportation of goods by road rendered by the Appellant, the liability to pay service tax is on the receiver of the service, who paid the freight,” the tribunal observed.
Tax Refund Cannot Be Claimed Without Challenging Or Modifying Self-Assessment: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai West (with connected appeals filed by the Revenue).
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 87176 of 2018 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 605
On 8 October, the Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a taxpayer cannot claim a service tax refund solely on the basis of a subsequent departmental clarification granting an exemption. The taxpayer must first challenge or modify the original self-assessment before seeking a refund of nearly Rs. 5.92 crore. A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava dismissed five appeals filed by Sodexo India and allowed five appeals filed by the Revenue in a dispute over service tax on services provided to educational institutions.
Case Title : M/s Promac Engineering Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 20993 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 607
The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that TDS paid separately by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax purposes. This applies when the agreement requires the Indian company to bear the tax. A Bench of Judicial Member P.A. Augustian and Technical Member R. Bhagya Devi set aside a service tax demand of ₹13.49 lakh against Promac Engineering Industries Limited. The demand related to TDS on payments to a Japanese company for technical know-how and engineering assistance.
Service Tax On Construction Services Payable On Actual Receipts, Not Accruals: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : M/s Britannia Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75351 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 606
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has remanded a ₹11,98,511 service tax demand against Britannia Engineering Ltd., holding that liability for the relevant period must be calculated on actual receipts rather than accruals. The dispute covers financial years 2006-07 to 2008-09, spanning the introduction of Works Contract Service as a separate taxable category from June 1, 2007. “Service tax is to be discharged on the receipt of the amount,” a bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan observed.
Case Title : Crescent Foundry Company Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 76559 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 608
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has ruled that goods re-imported for repairs cannot be replaced with freshly manufactured goods to claim customs duty exemption, even if they match in description and quality. Dismissing Crescent Foundry Company Private Limited's appeal, the tribunal held that Notification No. 158/95-Cus. requires the same goods to be re-exported after repairs or reconditioning.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GST Council Recommends Dropping Arrest Powers, Raising Prosecution Threshold To ₹5 Crore
The GST Council has recommended dropping arrest powers under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law by omitting Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 69 currently allows the tax authorities to authorise the arrest of a person suspected of committing specified GST offences. These offences are set out under Section 132 of the Act and include certain cases involving tax evasion and fraudulent input tax credit. It has also proposed raising the monetary threshold for prosecution from ₹1 crore to ₹5 crore and narrowing several offences under Section 132.