LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
20 Oct 2026 8:20 PM IST
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : Laxmi Narayan Gupta v. State Of U.P And 3 Others
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 4103 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 86
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST authorities cannot automatically be required to allow cross-examination merely because the reason given for denying such a request is legally unsustainable. The need for cross-examination must be assessed on the facts of each case. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held “While we accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the reasoning offered by the adjudicating authority to decline opportunity of cross-examination of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is unsustainable, at the same time, it cannot be said by way of a corollary-therefore, that opportunity must necessarily have been granted by the adjudicating authority. Which witness is to be cross-examined, is an issue to be dealt with by the adjudicating authority on its own facts in each case.”
Case Title : Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an ex parte adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the UP GST Act, 2017 where the show-cause notice had been served on the dealer only through the Common Portal, almost five years after his registration had already been cancelled. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. had, by Circular dated May 07, 2025, issued binding instructions to subordinate authorities to serve physical notice on noticees facing adjudication proceedings begun after cancellation of their registration.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Modem Rice Mill v. CTO Bheemavaram
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO: 30640/2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 56
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently held that dealers must submit Form H declarations by the time of assessment by the first assessing authority to claim a tax benefit on the last sale of goods preceding an export. The Full Bench clarified that the extended filing period available for Forms C and F under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, does not apply to Form H declarations. A three-judge Bench of Justice Battu Devanand, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma delivered the ruling while answering a reference arising from a batch of writ petitions concerning the time limit for submitting Form H declarations.
Bombay HC
GST Appeals Can't Be Dismissed Without Hearing Taxpayer On Pre-Deposit Shortfall: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Bhagyoday Agro Industries v. Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 9256 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 562
The Bombay High Court on 12 October held that a GST appeal cannot be dismissed for a shortfall in mandatory pre-deposit without first giving the taxpayer notice or an opportunity to rectify the defect. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil set aside the rejection of an appeal filed by Bhagyoday Agro Industries against a GST demand of approximately Rs. 14.77 crore.
Case Title : Rakesh Rajendra Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number : Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2370 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 566
The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a tax consultant accused of retaining over ₹45 lakh given to him by a client for GST payments and allegedly preparing fake GST bills to show that the amount had been deposited with the government. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Rakesh Rajendra Thakur, who was booked under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Can MVAT Credit Be Denied To Genuine Buyers For Sellers' Tax Default? Bombay High Court To Examine
Case Title : IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number : Maharashtra VAT Appeal Nos. 35 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 576
The Bombay High Court will examine whether Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, permits the denial of input tax credit (ITC) to a bona fide purchaser without any allegation of fraud, collusion, or connivance, particularly when the State has failed to recover the tax from the defaulting seller. A Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam A. Ankhad admitted six appeals filed by IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited against the State of Maharashtra. The court will also examine whether deductions for subcontract payments under the Maharashtra VAT Rules, 2005, are independent of or subject to the state VAT Act.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Quashes ₹25.23 Lakh GST Penalty, Orders Release Of Two Detained Trucks
Case Title : Permender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : WPA No. 3350 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 257
The Calcutta High Court on 14 October quashed GST penalty orders totalling Rs. 25.23 lakh imposed on two detained trucks, holding that the authorities passed the orders beyond the statutory deadline under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Aryak Dutt allowed a petition filed by truck owner Permender Singh, holding that the penalty orders were barred by limitation and passed without jurisdiction.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Om Shankar Metal (Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sidhant Sharma) v. Assistant Commissioner Mohan Co Operative Industrial Estate Division Delhi East Delhi CBIC
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15708/2025
The Delhi High Court on 9 October held that an appellate authority can examine a taxpayer's challenge to a 100% penalty under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, despite the taxpayer having already deposited a penalty equivalent to 15% of the tax liability. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to examine Om Shankar Metal's challenge in writ jurisdiction and relegated it to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Case Title : Vasundhara Sales Corporation Through Its Partner Mr. Sidharth Suragarhia v. M/S Sss Designtek Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Mr. Sachin Handa & Anr.
Case Number : RFA(COMM) 49/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1109
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that whether a C-Form issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), certifying a transaction between registered dealers, amounts to an acknowledgment of debt, must be examined on the facts and evidence. The question cannot be decided at the threshold stage while considering an application to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Case Title : Bajaj Capital Ltd. v. UoI & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 4217/2007
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1110
The Delhi High Court has deprecated the practice of service tax authorities issuing clarifications to bypass the statutory mechanism of advance rulings for determining tax liability. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Bajaj Capital Ltd., which had challenged a 2007 communication issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, regarding the applicability of service tax to its activities.
Case Title : Pradeep Industries & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11150/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1111
The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the headquarters of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a challenge against detention of goods at an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Pradeep Industries and others, holding that the entire cause of action had arisen at ICD Dadri, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 694 days Customs Appeal Delay Over Wife's Illness
Case Title : Nancy Trading Company v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad
Case Number : CUSAA 151/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1112
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 694 days in filing a customs appeal, observing that the appellant continued his business despite his wife's illness but made no effort for two years to ascertain the outcome of the proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed the appeal filed against CESTAT order rejecting Appellant's application seeking condonation of delay.
Customs Can't Withhold Detained Goods Without Stay Of Confiscation Order: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Kahakasha Parvin v. The Commissioner Of Customs And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9311/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1113
The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Customs Department has challenged an order before a revisional authority, it cannot withhold detained goods in the absence of any interim protection or stay against the operation of the order. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a woman seeking release of her gold jewellery detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport.
Delhi High Court Allows GST Appeal Without Full Pre-Deposit Over Overlapping Demands
Case Title : Forever Exim India Private Limited Through Its Director Sh. Sanjay Jain v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 17753/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1115
The Delhi High Court has permitted a taxpayer to approach the appellate authority with an application seeking exemption from the statutory pre-deposit requirement, to the extent the GST demand is alleged to overlap with an earlier demand. The division bench of Justices Anil Khetarpal and Bharat Parashar was hearing a plea by M/s Forever Exim India Private Limited seeking restoration of its writ petition challenging a GST order dated August 30, 2024.
Case Title : Sh. Surendra Kumar v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15022/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1119
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to examine its earlier judgments on GST-related issues and issue appropriate directions to avoid repeated litigation on similar questions of law. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar noted that a large number of writ petitions raising substantially similar issues continued to be filed despite its earlier judgments in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST, Delhi Zone & Anr. and Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case Title : MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS LIQUIDATOR MR ANIL KOHLI vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13751/2026
The Delhi High Court will examine whether companies undergoing liquidation can seek exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The issue is whether the requirement can be relaxed in view of the statutory distribution mechanism under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar requested Additional Solicitor General of India Raghavendra Shankar to assist the Court in examining the interplay between Section 107(6) of the CGST Act and the IBC, including whether the liquidation framework under Section 53 of the IBC affects the statutory pre deposit requirement.
Time Spent In Writ Petition Not Automatically Excluded From GST Appeal Limitation: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Hans Raj Kaushik, Proprietor, Kaushik Industries v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15157/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1129
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the time spent pursuing a writ petition cannot be automatically excluded while computing the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal against a GST adjudication order. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that if an assessee files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the period during which the writ petition remained pending, the Appellate Authority must consider the application in accordance with law.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Quashes ₹43.43 Crore GST Demand Against Amul
Case Title : Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 7085 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 151
The Gujarat High Court has recently quashed an IGST demand of ₹43.43 crore against Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, popularly known as Amul. The court held that failure to allocate common expenses to branches through cross-charging does not, by itself, establish fraud or suppression of facts to evade GST. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati ruled that the tax authorities had failed to establish the conditions required to invoke Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Rejection Of Correction Plea Cannot Be Challenged In VAT Revision: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Super Power Steels v. The Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 35
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 12 October held that Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act does not permit a revision petition against an order rejecting a correction application under Section 47(1). A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Romesh Verma dismissed a revision petition filed by Super Power Steels against the Tax Tribunal's rejection of its application to correct an earlier order.
Madras HC
Case Title : M/s. Shree Velu Builders Private limited v. State Tax officer
Case Number : WP No. 38341 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 311
The Madras High Court has set aside a ₹5.50 crore GST demand against Shree Velu Builders Private Limited, holding that tax cannot be levied on projected revenue from two building blocks merely because their plans had been approved. The court noted that construction had not commenced in either block. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy remanded the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the company depositing ₹50 lakh within four weeks.
Customs Cannot Detain Cattle Feed As Prohibited Goods Without Sufficient Grounds: Madras High Court
Case Title : The Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Rajarajendiran
Case Number : W.A.Nos.2931 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 313
The Madras High Court on 28 September held that Customs authorities cannot treat imported cattle feed as prohibited goods merely on allegations of diversion for human consumption, particularly when laboratory reports indicate that the goods are unfit for human consumption. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and S. Raveekumar upheld the direction to release the consignment against sufficient indemnity in an appeal filed by Customs authorities against S.R. Rajarajendiran, proprietor of Asia Gate Exims, while allowing adjudication proceedings to continue in accordance with law.
Dupattas Made Of Woven Fabric Exempt From Tax As Fibres Under TNVAT Act: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s. Vedant Fashions Pvt Ltd v. The State Of Tamilnadu
Case Number : TC Nos. 50 to 52 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 318
The Madras High Court on 7 October held that dupattas made of woven fabric fall under the exemption for textile fabrics under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, 2006, and cannot be classified as fibres for taxation. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Rajasekar allowed three tax case revisions filed by Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd., and set aside the 4% tax levy on dupattas for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Case Title : The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. M/s. Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd
Case Number : CMA No. 1374 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 319
The Madras High Court on 12 October held that payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) on fit-out charges does not automatically exempt the same transaction from service tax. Further, a portion of the consideration for leased office premises must be attributed to fit-outs provided under the lease agreements. A Division Bench comprising Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan upheld CENVAT credit claimed by Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd. on specified input services, while deciding an appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai South, against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Patna HC
Case Title : Ingram Micro-India Private Limited v. The State of Bihar
Case Number : Miscellaneous Appeal No.650 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT) 33
The Patna High Court on 9 October held that mobile chargers sold with cellular phones in composite packs attract VAT at the residual rate of 13.5%, as they qualify as independent accessories rather than parts of the phones. A Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh also held that toner and cartridges do not qualify for lower VAT rates applicable to computer peripherals and their parts and accessories, and dismissed appeals filed by Ingram Micro-India Private Limited against a common order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar.
Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of ₹47.45 Lakh Cash Seized Over Alleged Unaccounted Sales
Case Title : Bhagwan Tirthani v. Principal Commissioner, General Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2128/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 55
The Rajasthan High Court on 14 September directed the GST department to release Rs. 47.45 lakh seized during a search of residential premises, along with applicable interest. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar held that Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act does not authorise the seizure of cash merely on suspicion that it represents proceeds from unaccounted sales.
Telangana HC
Case Title : Gudla Vanaja and others v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case Number : W.P.Nos.20397 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 76
The Telangana High Court has recently held that GST show-cause notices and adjudication orders cannot be invalidated merely because downloaded PDF copies do not display a visible digital signature. This is provided they have been electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the GST common portal. “The case of the petitioners based upon the contention that the PDF format does not contain the visible digital signature of the proper officer is untenable in law,” the Full Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Justice N. Tukaramji and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin ruled.
GSTAT
Case Title : Valuecart Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number : APL/174/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 51
The Bengaluru Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 30 September partly allowed an appeal filed by Valuecart Private Limited against a penalty of Rs. 20,13,640 imposed under Section 129 of the Central and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Acts, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000 under Section 125 of the GST Acts for the procedural lapse. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman held that failure to generate a fresh e-way bill for returning imported goods after a failed delivery does not, by itself, justify a penalty for tax evasion when the authorities find no evidence of such evasion.
GSTAT Delhi Directs Builder To Pay ₹31.20 Lakh To 66 Homebuyers For Failure To Pass On ITC Benefit
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/58/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 53
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi, on 30 September directed Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 31.20 lakh to 66 homebuyers of its Atri Green Valley Project in Kolkata, along with 18% annual interest. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta rejected the company's objections to the re-investigation and held that it had violated Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, by failing to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) to homebuyers.
GSTAT Orders IRCTC To Deposit ₹50.41 Crore For Failing To Pass On GST Benefit On Rail Neer
Case Title : DGAP, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC)
Case Number : NAPA/46/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 54
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Delhi has held that Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) failed to pass on the benefit of a reduction in tax rates on Rail Neer packaged drinking water after GST was introduced in 2017. The tribunal found that although the Railway Board fixed the maximum retail price (MRP), IRCTC had the discretion to determine the transfer price at which it supplied the product to railway licensees and contractors.
CESTAT
CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied On Works Contract Goods Outside Service Tax Levy: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Toshiba JSW Power Systems (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 40612 and 40613 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 609
On 9 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai, held that the Explanation to Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, does not bar CENVAT credit on duty-paid capital goods transferred under a works contract, as the value of such goods falls outside the service tax levy. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao allowed appeals filed by Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited and set aside the denial of CENVAT credit, interest and penalties. It also held that the Department could not deny credit merely because the goods became part of an immovable plant.
CESTAT Kolkata Allows CENVAT Credit On Sales Commission For Goods Sold Through Depots
Case Title : Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 77334 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 610
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that commission paid to agents for procuring orders, arranging dispatches, and collecting payments for goods sold through a manufacturer's depots is eligible for CENVAT credit where the depot is the place of removal. A Bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan held that the commission services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title : Lufthansa German Airlines v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50004 of 2020 and Service Tax Appeal No. 50849 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 611
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled that cancellation fees collected by Lufthansa German Airlines as compensation for passengers failing to honour their travel commitments are not taxable as consideration for a separate service under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. “In short, the cancellation charges are in the form of a compensation for failure of a contract entered into that the passenger would fly and the airlines would carry him to his destination. It is not a consideration and there is no separate agreement with an intent that the passenger would default so that airline would get some compensation,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Rissala Electric Motors (P) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 52227 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 612
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has denied concessional customs duty to an importer of electric two-wheelers in completely knocked down (CKD) condition because the kits lacked components required under the applicable exemption notification. A Bench of Officiating President Dr. Rachna Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya, however, upheld their classification as complete electric two-wheelers under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Service Tax Orders Against A.P. Constructions, Orders Fresh Adjudication
Case Title : A.P. Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise; P.S. Shivakumar v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41344 of 2016, 40299 of 2022 and 40300 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 613
On Thursday, 15 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai, set aside three service tax orders against A.P. Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, directing fresh adjudication within 90 days after examining the contractual arrangements, applicable statutory provisions and supporting evidence. A Bench comprising Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar allowed all three appeals by way of remand, holding that the Department must examine the nature of construction contracts, the terms of joint development agreements and the evidence supporting reverse-charge liabilities before confirming the demands.
Tender Documents Sale Not A Service, No Service Tax Payable On Fees: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur-I
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 50014 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 614
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), on 13 October held that fees collected for selling tender documents are not subject to service tax, as the sale of documents does not constitute a taxable service. A Bench of Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya allowed the appeal filed by Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Limited against a service tax demand of Rs. 72,071, along with interest and penalty.
Amounts Collected From Dhabas Under 'Yatri Plaza Yojna' Not Taxable To Service Tax: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 70571 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 615
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has set aside a service tax demand of ₹3.85 lakh against the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) over amounts collected from roadside dhabas under its “Yatri Plaza Yojna”. The tribunal held that the arrangement was a public welfare measure to ensure passenger safety and convenience, not a commercial transaction involving a taxable service.
Water Supply Agreement Is Sale Of Water, Not Taxable Service: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (Audit), Indore
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 55329 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 616
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has recently ruled that an agreement allowing an industrial unit to draw water directly from a water body can constitute a sale of water rather than an assignment of the right to use natural resources. The tribunal set aside a service tax demand of ₹7.29 crore against Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), holding that the agreement was for the sale of water.
Mere Introduction To Freight Forwarder Does Not Prove Intent To Evade Customs Duty: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Shri Chirag Jayant Shah v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : Customs Appeal No.40978 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 617
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October held that merely introducing an importer to a freight forwarder does not establish involvement in customs duty evasion or justify a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar set aside the Rs. 1 lakh penalty imposed on Chirag Jayant Shah, an assistant manager at A.E. Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for allegedly facilitating the import of undervalued branded glass stones.
CESTAT Chennai Remands Ramco Cements' CENVAT Dispute, Says Actual Nature Of Work Must Be Examined
Case Title : M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41539 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 618
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October set aside the CENVAT credit demand against Ramco Cements Ltd. and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the services contractor-wise and quantify the demand falling within the normal limitation period. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that machinery installation, repair and maintenance services cannot be excluded from CENVAT credit merely because they relate to a plant expansion project. The eligibility of such services must be determined by examining the actual work performed under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title : Reliable Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Patna
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75754 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 619
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has ruled that commission earned from a Vodafone SIM distributorship was exempt from service tax under a 2012 notification. The tribunal also set aside the demand on plastic dustbins and portable toilets supplied to local bodies and State Governments, holding that the transactions involved sales of goods on which VAT had been paid. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Reliable Enterprises, a sole proprietorship based in Patna.
Case Title : Yash Raj Films Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 85323 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 620
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled that overseas Local Area Representatives (LARs) who arrange third-party services for film shoots abroad act as intermediaries. Since the place of provision of these intermediary services was outside India, Yash Raj Films Private Limited was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal set aside a demand of ₹46.41 crore, along with interest and penalties.