LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: October 19 - October 25, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
27 Oct 2026 10:08 AM IST
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title : 1Pay Mobileware Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 4586 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 577
The Bombay High Court has observed that GST authorities cannot justify provisional attachment of bank accounts through affidavits-in-reply when the attachment orders themselves do not record the required opinion or establish any GST liability of the company. “Further, the orders of provisional attachment cannot be justified through affidavits-in-reply. Neither the impugned orders nor the affidavit-in-reply contain any 'opinion'. The same is indicative of only official inquiry. There is no material on record to show that there is any GST liability on the petitioner,” the court observed.
Case Title : Aegon Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva (General)
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 61 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 581
The Bombay High Court will examine whether shipping lines, shipping agents, and carriers that neither hold physical custody of cargo nor operate cargo within customs premises can be classified as 'Customs Cargo Service Providers' under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash framed this question while admitting an appeal filed by Aegon Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai.
Case Title : Heimerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 582
The Bombay High Court on Monday ruled that new import restrictions cannot apply to platinum jewellery that had already arrived in India before the restrictions were officially published, even if the importer files customs documents later. Relying on apex court's ruling in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India ,a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held., “The Notification acquired the force of law only on 2nd April 2026 at 20:52:58 hours, and it can be validly applied only to the goods dispatched from the country of export after its publication and not to goods already dispatched and arrived in India prior to its publication.”
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹62.42 Lakh GST Demand Over Notices Uploaded In Wrong Portal Section
Case Title : Abracadabra India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 586
The Bombay High Court on 16 October set aside a GST demand of Rs. 62.42 lakh against Abracadabra India after finding that the tax department had uploaded the notices in a separate section of the GST portal, depriving the company of an opportunity to respond. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held that the notices had not been uploaded in the regular “View Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal but in the “Additional Notices and Orders” section, which the company had failed to notice.
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹62.42 Lakh GST Demand Over Notices Uploaded In Wrong Portal Section
Case Title : Abracadabra India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 586
The Bombay High Court on 16 October set aside a GST demand of Rs. 62.42 lakh against Abracadabra India after finding that the tax department had uploaded the notices in a separate section of the GST portal, depriving the company of an opportunity to respond. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil held that the notices had not been uploaded in the regular “View Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal but in the “Additional Notices and Orders” section, which the company had failed to notice.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Blue Star International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3867/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1157
The Delhi High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department to rectify multiple demand summaries generated due to a technical glitch in the GST portal within 15 days. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar also clarified that the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal must be calculated on the demand actually confirmed in the assessment order and not on the erroneously repeated amount.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1158
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 154 days in an appeal filed by the Customs Department, observing that a government department cannot take its own sweet time to move files and then seek condonation of delay. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that administrative negligence and the leisurely movement of files cannot constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the department has its own panel of lawyers.
Case Title : Blue Star International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3867/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1157
The Delhi High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department to rectify multiple demand summaries generated due to a technical glitch in the GST portal within 15 days. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar also clarified that the statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal must be calculated on the demand actually confirmed in the assessment order and not on the erroneously repeated amount.
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt Ltd
Case Number : CUSAA 3/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1158
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 154 days in an appeal filed by the Customs Department, observing that a government department cannot take its own sweet time to move files and then seek condonation of delay. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that administrative negligence and the leisurely movement of files cannot constitute sufficient grounds for condoning delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the department has its own panel of lawyers.
Delhi High Court Says Customs Broker's Licence Need Not Be Revoked For Every CBLR Violation
Case Title : Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) v. Freight Logistics
Case Number : CUSAA 68/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1162
The Delhi High Court has upheld the view that revocation of a customs broker's licence is not warranted for every violation of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR), and that the punishment must be proportionate to the nature of the violation. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain endorsed the view while dismissing an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging a CESTAT order which had declined to revoke Respondent's licence over its alleged role in an attempted export of prohibited goods to China.
Case Title : Swastik Overseas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13522/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1163
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of imported stainless-steel coils at the Inland Container Depot (ICD), Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, holding that the location of the Customs Commissionerate's headquarters in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court when no part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain held that the dispute concerning the seizure of goods and their provisional release fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, as the goods were detained at ICD Dadri and the proceedings were pending before the customs authority in Uttar Pradesh.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh, Proprietor of M/s Mustufa Sales Agency v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14717 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 153
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax to explain how the department's portal allowed an officer to issue three personal hearing notices on the same day. Each notice fixed a different date and time for the hearing. The court warned that failure to file the report by the next hearing would invite strictures against the authorities. The notices were digitally signed within an interval of one minute and 40 seconds.
GST Authorities Must Give Taxpayers Reasonable Time To Furnish Audit Documents: Gujarat High Court
Case Title : HuberGroup India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 14772 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 158
Tax authorities must inform taxpayers within a reasonable time if documents submitted for a GST audit are incomplete, the Gujarat High Court has held. “However, we are of the opinion that, where a registered person furnishes documents pursuant to a notice issued under Section 65 of the CGST Act but some documents remain outstanding, the tax authorities are required to inform the registered person of the missing or outstanding documents within a reasonable time, so that the audit can be completed at the earliest,” the court observed.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : N.S. Ganesh v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.19486 OF 2025 (GM-MM_S)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 204
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to refund ₹15.41 lakh deducted from the refund due to an iron ore auction purchaser after the auction failed because the ore was not available at the site. The Court also awarded interest at 8% per annum on the amount of ₹2.89 crore deposited by the purchaser, holding that the State cannot retain money without providing the corresponding consideration.
Madras HC
Madras High Court Upholds Barytes Export Curbs, Orders DGFT To Decide Licence Plea In 4 Weeks
Case Title : Gimpex Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P. No. 29394 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 326
The Madras High Court has upheld the Centre's decision to restrict the export of certain grades of Barytes, a mineral used in industries including oil and gas drilling. It held that the government can regulate exports to conserve scarce mineral reserves. The bench further directed the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to decide a company's pending request for permission to export its existing stock within four weeks.
Case Title : M/s SPM Arts LLP v. M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures and 3 others
Case Number : C.S(COMM DIV) No. 92 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 328
The Madras High Court has directed film production company Shri Abishek Pictures and its partner Abhishek Venkat Nama to jointly and severally pay ₹1.22 crore to SPM Arts LLP towards GST dues arising from the assignment of dubbing rights for the Telugu film Saakshyam. Justice P.B. Balaji held that the production firm, having received the entire consideration of ₹7.5 crore and agreed to bear the GST liability under the assignment deed, was responsible for paying the applicable tax.
GSTAT
CA Certificate Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because It Was Issued After Transactions: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, Commissioner, GST Office Lucknow & Ors.Rameshwar Gupta v. Commissioner SGST, Commissioner, GST Office Lucknow & Ors.
Case Number : APL/1/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 55
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 6 October held that a Chartered Accountant's (CA) certificate supporting an Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim cannot be rejected solely because it was issued after the transactions in question, provided its contents can be verified against contemporaneous records. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra allowed Rameshwar Gupta's appeal against the rejection of his ITC claim for the financial year 2017-18 over discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.
Case Title : Associated Cashews v. Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APL/52/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(THIR) 56
On 16 October, the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) allowed a cashew exporter Associated Cashews to recover approximately Rs. 19.79 lakh in Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid twice, holding that a clerical error in GST returns cannot justify denying a refund of tax paid in excess, A Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram observed that the GST Department cannot retain tax collected twice when the taxpayer was not legally required to make the additional payment.
Case Title : Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited
Case Number : APL/24/AGR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(AGR) 57
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra Bench, has recently ruled that an allegation that a supplier is bogus cannot, by itself, justify denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) without examining the evidence produced by the buyer to establish that the purchases were genuine. The bench comprising Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar upheld ITC of ₹3.83 lakh claimed by Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited. It found that the company had produced documents supporting the purchases and establishing the transportation and receipt of goods.
GSTAT Ernakulam Allows Excess Output Tax Paid To Be Adjusted Against Ineligible ITC
Case Title : Chennamkudiyil Timbers v. Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number : APL/20/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(ERN) 58
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has recently ruled that excess output tax paid by a taxpayer can be adjusted against ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC). It held that when the excess tax paid exceeds the ITC disallowed, there is no short payment of tax warranting proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act. “Expecting the appellant to pay up the shortfall demanded and then file a claim for refund of the excess amount paid would be an exercise in futility. As such we find that when the excess of output tax paid is more than the input credit denied, there is no short payment of tax warranting invocation of proceedings under section 73 of the KGST / CGST Act,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Nitin Bakers Private Limited v. Vijay Singh Visen, Deputy Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number : APL/108/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LCK) 59
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow Bench, has held that confirming a GST demand based purely on system-generated discrepancies, without a detailed one-to-one financial reconciliation, violates the spirit of law and fairness. The Division Bench of Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar made the observation while setting aside the original demand order and the first appellate order against Nitin Bakers Private Limited, involving ₹56.24 lakh in tax, interest, and penalty. the tribunal remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh determination.
GSTAT Chandigarh Allows Deltron ₹2.90 Lakh GST Credit, Rejects ₹6.99 Lakh Claim
Case Title : Deltron v. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Ludhiana, Commissioner, Ludhiana & Ors.
Case Number : APL/28/CHD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(CHD) 60
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Chandigarh, has allowed Deltron to claim ₹2.90 lakh in transitional tax credit on capital goods received after GST came into force. However, it rejected the company's claim for ₹6.99 lakh in credit on goods cleared for export before GST but exported after the new tax regime came into force. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Jatinder Pal Singh and Technical Member Pradeep Kumar Goel partly allowed the appeal filed by Deltron, a division of Continental Device India Private Limited, against an order disallowing its transitional credit claim under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title : Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi
Case Number : APL/3/ERN/2026 to APL/9/ERN/2026 and APL/30/ERN/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(ERN) 61
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has recently allowed Singapore Airlines' claims for a ₹45.92 lakh GST refund on tickets for flights cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that the airline had refunded passengers the full ticket fare, including GST. “The appellant-airline is eligible for the refund of GST collected from the passengers and paid by them to the GST Department, but subsequently refunded entire amount of fare including GST to the passengers, on account of cancellation of the flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order,” the tribunal observed.
Case Title : Oxygen The Digital Shop v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST
Case Number : APL/15/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(TVP) 62
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop to claim ₹11.23 lakh in Input Tax Credit (ITC) on carpentry, joinery and painting services used for interior work at its rented shops. It held that the GST component was not capitalised in the retailer's books of accounts. “Since the amount of GST is not capitalised, such amount of tax does not get covered under the restricted category of Section 17(5)(d),” the tribunal ruled.
CESTAT
CESTAT Chennai Allows ₹3.91 Lakh CENVAT Benefit To HUL, Says Job Workers' Tax Exemption No Bar
Case Title : Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41315 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 621
On 22 October, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, set aside the denial of Rs. 3,91,207 in CENVAT credit to Hindustan Unilever Limited on service tax paid by job workers, along with the consequential interest and penalty. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. allowed the company's appeal, holding that Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which bars payment of duty on absolutely exempt goods, does not apply to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
CESTAT Chennai Allows Royal Enfield's CENVAT Credit Appeals, Sets Aside ₹51.47 Lakh Penalty
Case Title : M/s. Royal Enfield (A Unit of Eicher Motors Limited) v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 42248 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 622
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, on 15 October allowed appeals filed by Royal Enfield and set aside demands for reversal of CENVAT credit and penalties imposed on the company. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao held that the absence of a separate Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration did not, by itself, disentitle the company from claiming credit on eligible input services.
CESTAT Delhi Upholds ₹2.89 Lakh Tax Demand On Transit Mixer Hiring, Rejects GTA Service Claim
Case Title : M/s. Shri Sai RMC v. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-E, Behror (Alwar)
Case Number : SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.51146 OF 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 623
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 16 October upheld a service tax demand of Rs. 2.89 lakh against Shri Sai RMC for hiring transit mixer (TM) machines, holding that the transaction was not covered under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya dismissed the appeal, finding that the case was covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in K.P. Mozika v. ONGC on the distinction between the transfer of the right to use goods and the provision of a service.
CESTAT Delhi Remands Schlumberger's ₹5.82 Crore Tax Dispute Over ONGC Training And Offshore Services
Case Title : Commissioner of Service Tax v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 59448 of 2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 624
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, on 21 October set aside an order dropping service tax demands against Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It held that the taxability of training services provided to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and services connected with offshore oil and gas exploration required further examination.
Royalty Paid To Partners For Trademark Use Not Taxable Without Service Relationship: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title : Shri Ananda Paul, Partner v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Bolpur
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No.75208 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 625
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, on 14 October held that royalty received by partners for allowing their partnership firm to use a jointly owned trademark does not attract service tax in the absence of a service provider-recipient relationship. A Bench of Judicial Member R. Muralidhar allowed four appeals filed by the partners of Radhashyam Tirthabasi Paul against the confirmation of service tax demands on royalty received for the use of the trademark “Shankha Bidi”. It held:
Hospital Food Contractor Liable To Pay Service Tax As Outdoor Caterer: CESTAT Bangalore
Case Title : Annapoorna Health Foods v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 971 of 2012
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(BLR) 626
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has held that a contractor supplying food from hospital premises can be liable to pay service tax as an outdoor caterer, even where VAT has been paid on the goods component. “Based on the above definitions a person undertaking catering in his own premises or premises offered by the clients and who supplies food directly or indirectly falls under the definition of outdoor caterer,” the tribunal observed.