LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 14 - September 20, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
22 Sept 2026 9:18 AM IST
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
GST Authority Cannot Pass Fresh Ex-Parte Order After Ignoring Replies: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/S Wonder Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 3203 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 78
The Allahabad High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 must recall an order if it finds that it failed to consider the replies filed against the proceedings and hear the person afresh. It cannot consider those replies itself and pass a fresh ex-parte order on merits while exercising the rectification power under Section 161 of the Act. A Division Bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi set aside an order passed against Wonder Enterprises after the Adjudicating Authority acknowledged that it had failed to consider the firm's replies in the original order but instead considered them itself in a subsequent order.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title : Smt G Swarajya Lakshmi v. Commercial Tax Officer & Others
Case Number : W.P.Nos.253 of 2021 & 17913 OF 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(APH) 52
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on 3 September held that hiring buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) does not amount to a transfer of the right to use goods where substantial control and physical possession remain with the bus owners. A Division Bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar quashed the assessment orders against private bus operators, holding that the transactions were not taxable as deemed sales under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Bombay HC
Case Title : Transcon Sheth Creators Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 10725 of 2015
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 517
The Bombay High Court has held that future redevelopment potential of a property cannot be treated as a present and certain benefit while determining its market value for stamp duty. The uncertainty, expenses, delay, and legal difficulties involved in realising that potential must also be considered. Justice Amit Borkar observed, “A purchaser may be willing to pay something for future potential. But such potential cannot be treated as a present and certain benefit without considering the uncertainty, expenses, delay, legal difficulties and other conditions which may come in the way of obtaining that benefit.”
Case Title : Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. with connected matter
Case Number : Writ Petition Nos. 2029 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 526
The Bombay High Court has quashed a ₹12.11 crore GST demand against Dharma Productions over licensing of copyright in cinematographic films, holding that electronic delivery of film content cannot by itself make the transaction one involving “Information Technology Software”. A bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil was considering whether the manner in which the films were delivered, physically through encrypted hard disks or electronically, could determine their GST classification.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court To Examine If Customs Can Treat 'Obscene Adult Sex Toys' As Prohibited Goods
Case Title : Pracha Aalloy Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WPO/370/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 221
The Calcutta High Court is set to examine whether goods described as “obscene adult sex toys” can be treated as “prohibited goods” under the Customs Act without identifying a specific statutory or notification-based prohibition. Justice Smita Das De is hearing a petition filed by Pracha Aalloy Private Limited against a July 22, 2026, Customs order. The key question is whether describing the goods as “obscene adult sex toys” and invoking Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can, by themselves, make them prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act.
Post-Facto Approval Cannot Bring Pre-GST Services Within GST Regime: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : M/s Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Case Number : WPA 5150 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 227
The Calcutta High Court on 14 September held that post-facto approval of work completed before the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) cannot alter the date of supply or bring the completed service within the GST regime. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee allowed a writ petition filed by Goutam Engineering Concern against West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and directed the latter to release Rs. 19,91,148 towards payment for technical personnel deployed for repair and maintenance of feeder lines.
Bona Fide Buyer Of Duty-Free Import Licence Not Liable For Exporter's Fraud: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number : CUSTA 7 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 228
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a bona fide purchaser of a duty-free import licence cannot be made liable for the exporter's fraud when the purchaser had no knowledge of it. It observed that a licence obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is not automatically void or non-existent. Where the licence was genuinely issued by the competent authority and remained uncancelled, it continues to be valid until it is avoided in accordance with law.
Delhi HC
Case Title : Adhvik Polychem v. Assistant Commissioner GST Ward 58
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13175/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 955
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a firm's writ petition challenging the rejection of its application for cancellation of GST registration. The authorities had alleged that the firm sought registration on the basis of documents whose authenticity could not be verified and had availed or passed Input Tax Credit (ITC) from non-existent firms. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the dispute involved examination of the material and various allegations against the firm, making the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, the appropriate remedy.
Case Title : Welspring Universal v. Additional Commissioner Of Central GST
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11957/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 960
The Delhi High Court has quashed a ₹76.72 lakh CENVAT refund recovery demand against an engineering products manufacturer, holding that the adjudicating authority could not rely on an order after it had been set aside by the CESTAT. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the Additional Commissioner, while confirming the demand, failed to take into account the CESTAT's subsequent order expressly upholding the petitioner's entitlement to refund of ₹76.72 lakh under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Customs Failed To Quantify Duty, Can't Blame Traveller For Delay In Redeeming Gold: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Prikshith Jhaver v. Commissioner Of Customs Terminal 3 & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3527/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 961
The Delhi High Court has held that a passenger cannot be faulted for failing to redeem confiscated gold within the stipulated period when the Customs Department itself failed to quantify and communicate the applicable duty, despite receiving his request within time. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Vimal Kumar Yadav accordingly directed the Customs authorities to communicate the duty payable on 12 gold bars weighing 1,200 grams and release the gold upon payment of the duty, redemption fine, penalty and applicable interest.
Delhi High Court Upholds Corrigendum Correcting GST Portal Order That Showed Proceedings Dropped
Case Title : Kapil Raj Anand v. GST Officer, Ward 109, Delhi
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7339/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 963
The Delhi High Court has upheld a corrigendum issued by a GST officer to correct an inadvertent error on the GST portal, where the portal-generated order showed that proceedings against a taxpayer had been dropped even though the accompanying adjudication order had confirmed a tax, interest and penalty demand. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the corrigendum merely corrected an inconsistent recital in the original order and did not create a fresh demand.
Case Title : Ridhi Sidhi Overseas v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3391/2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 977
The Delhi High Court has held that although the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, bars the Revenue from initiating a fresh demand after the prescribed period, it does not prevent the authorities from appropriating an amount already voluntarily deposited by an importer during investigation towards the admitted customs duty liability. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a case arising from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into alleged under-invoicing and misdeclaration of the transaction value and retail sale price of confectionery items imported by Petitioner from Dubai.
Case Title : Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case Number : W.P.(C) 11021/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 978
The Delhi High Court has upheld the search conducted by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department at an Advocate's office, including seizure of a CPU from his cabin, holding that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where there is prima facie material indicating his possible involvement in the affairs under investigation.
Case Title : Ajay Singh Gautam v. Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10607/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 979
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of a GST circular prescribing the 'highest amount of demand' criterion for selecting a Common Adjudicating Authority where a composite show-cause notice is issued to multiple noticees falling under different jurisdictions. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain held that the circular does not confer any fresh jurisdiction on an officer.
Case Title : RPP Infra Projects Ltd v. Karnataka Union Of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10852/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 980
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that merely because a taxpayer is administratively assigned to the State tax administration, it does not bar the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) from exercising its pan-India jurisdiction to investigate alleged GST evasion. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by a real estate company which has GST registrations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
Case Title : Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup v. Commissioner Of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi & Anr
Case Number : W.P.(C) 3002/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 981
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism under the Customs Act merely by citing financial hardship in complying with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging ₹3 crore penalty imposed on a man in connection with an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood concealed beneath carpets.
GST | Disputed SCN Service, Personal Hearing Issues Cannot Be Raised In Writ Plea: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Rishiraj Singh Rathore v. Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi West Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7098/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 984
The Delhi High Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction over pleas by two directors of Sterne India Pvt. Ltd. challenging a ₹27.11 crore GST penalty. The court held that their claims over service of the show cause notice (SCN) and denial of personal hearing involved factual issues that could be examined by the statutory appellate authority. According to the court, these grievances did not justify bypassing the remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Case Title : Saraswati Printers v. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Dzu And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 833/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 985
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer challenging proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by State GST authorities can raise the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), before the statutory appellate authority.
GST | Same Assessee, Overlapping Periods Not Enough To Bar DGGI Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Sanskriti Exim Private Limited Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Dzu And Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 929/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 986
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings initiated by State GST authorities and the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because they relate to the same assessee, overlapping financial periods, or involve Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) is attracted only when the subsequent proceedings concern the “same subject matter," which has to be determined with reference to the particular tax liability, alleged contravention, and demand involved.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of GST Cancellation Revocation Plea Over Unidentified Officer
Case Title : Radhe Sales Corporation v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9456/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 991
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting a taxpayer's application for revocation of cancellation of its GST registration, after finding that the notice granting an opportunity of personal hearing did not disclose the details of the officer before whom the taxpayer was required to appear. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan directed the GST authorities to grant the taxpayer a fresh opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order on its revocation application.
Gauhati HC
Case Title : M/s Deepak Construction Co. v. The Union of Indian and 7 Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)/5128/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(GAU) 33
The Gauhati High Court has directed GST authorities not to take coercive steps against a taxpayer for discharge of any liability during an ongoing search and directed them to adhere to the prescribed GST investigation guidelines till the returnable date. Justice Manish Choudhury passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Deepak Construction Co., a partnership firm having its principal place of business at Hijuguri, Tinsukia, Assam.
Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court Admits Ford India Plea Against GST Demands Based On E-Way Bill Discrepancies
Case Title : M/s Ford India Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 1344 and 1351 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 129
The Gujarat High Court on 3 September admitted connected writ petitions filed by Ford India Private Limited challenging show-cause notices and Orders-in-Original issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning alleged discrepancies between taxable values and e-way bill data. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati found that the adjudicating authority had expressed its inability to reconcile the voluminous data despite the material Ford India had furnished.
Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Demand, Holds ITC Cannot Be Denied On Non-Taxable Transaction
Case Title : Kor Chems Through Partner Sanjay Rameshchandra Soni v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 6623 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 131
The Gujarat High Court has held that tax authorities cannot deny input tax credit on a transaction that was not taxable in the first place. A bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati made the ruling while quashing a GST demand against Kor Chems over credit claimed on the acquisition of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot. The court held that the ITC reversal and interest could not survive after finding that GST was not leviable on the transfer of the leasehold rights.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Quashes GST Penalty Proceedings Over One-Day Delay In Notice
Case Title : Danish Hassan v. UT of J&K and Others
Case Number : WP(C) 2538/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 29
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the seven-day timeline under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for issuing a notice after detention and seizure of goods is mandatory. The court set aside the orders in the case after finding that the notice was issued a day beyond the prescribed period. “There was a delay of one day in issuing the notice, which vitiates the entire proceedings,” a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed.
J&K And Ladakh High Court Upholds Construction Workers Cess Act For Erstwhile J&K
Case Title : R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number : OWP No. 1599/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 30
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the levy of cess on the cost of construction under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, holding that the Cess Act is an extension and integral part of the law governing the employment and welfare of construction workers. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held, “The Cess Act must be considered and treated to be an extension and integral part of the BOCW Act. The Cess Act does provide for levy and collection of cess but clearly provides in Section 3 that the purpose of collection of levy and cess is for giving effect to the BOCW Act. The predominant object and purpose of the Cess Act is to garner finances and augment the resources for the Workers' Welfare Boards constituted under the BOCW Act,” the Bench held.
Case Title : Uflex Ltd. v. UT of J&K and Others
Case Number : WP (C) No. 2950/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(JAM) 31
On 16 September, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stayed a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the petitioner challenged the invocation of the provision in the absence of foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Shahzad Azeem issued notice to the respondents and stayed the effect and operation of the notice, which demanded around Rs. 3.88 crore in tax from Uflex Limited for the financial year 2020-21.
Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court Upholds Cross-Subsidy Surcharge On Bagasse-Based Power Plants
Case Title : The Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and Others
Case Number : W.P. No.104538 of 2022 and connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 159
The Karnataka High Court has upheld cross-subsidy surcharge demands against bagasse-based cogeneration units, holding that exempting solar power projects from the levy while imposing it on bagasse-based cogeneration plants was not discriminatory. Bagasse is the fibrous residue left after sugarcane is crushed to extract its juice Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Ugar Sugar Works Limited,Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit and Godavari Biorefineries Limited.
Case Title : M/s King Enterprise v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)
Case Number : WP No. 107390 of 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 164
The Karnataka High Court on 11 September set aside a GST tax and penalty demand of Rs. 91,00,384 against King Enterprise, finding that the proceedings had been completed ex parte without affording the business an effective opportunity to present its case. Justice T.M. Nadaf set aside the tax and summary orders against the company and remanded the matter to the tax authority for fresh consideration.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Furnace Oil And Light Diesel Oil Are Distinct, Cannot Be Taxed Alike: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title : M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 12727 of 2010
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MP) 64
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 8 September held that Furnace Oil (FO) and Light Diesel Oil (LDO) are distinct commodities and cannot be taxed at the same rate merely because both are used as fuel. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed petitions filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), setting aside orders that had treated FO as LDO for taxation purposes.
Madras HC
Case Title : Ramegowdu Mahendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number : WP No. 32056 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 262
The Madras High Court has held that Income Tax authorities cannot rely solely on a GST adjudication order while conducting reassessment proceedings, cautioning that any reassessment must independently comply with the Income Tax Act. A single judge bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, however, declined to interfere with the Section 148 notice issued to a granite and tiles business proprietor for AY 2023-24, as the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage.
Case Title : The Madras Club v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : CMA No. 1327 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 263
The Madras High Court on 1 September directed the authorities to refund Rs.6.41 lakh to The Madras Club, after finding that the club had not passed on the tax burden to its members to that extent. A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan partly allowed the club's appeal against a CESTAT order rejecting its refund claim. The judges held: “...in respect of the portion of the amount in a sum of Rs.9,09,717/-, the appellant has already passed on the burden to its members. However, the remaining sum of Rs.6,41,369/- is yet to be received from the members. In other words, no burden has been passed on to the members to the extent of Rs.6,41,369/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to have refund only to the extent of Rs.6,41,369/-”
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thanjavur II Assessment Circle v. Nalini Cycle Mart
Case Number : W.A.(MD) No.429 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 266
The Madras High Court has ruled that a dealer eligible for the tax composition scheme cannot be denied its concessional rate when the assessing authority itself determines that the dealer's taxable turnover is below the ₹50 lakh limit. The bench held that the authority cannot rely on an earlier estimate showing turnover above the limit after finally fixing the taxable turnover below it. “The Assessing Officer could not maintain two contradictory positions in the same order, i.e., on one hand, accepting that the dealer's total turnover was Rs.37,28,468/- (below Rs.50 Lakhs), and on the other hand, applying a tax rate of 14.5% meant for non-composition dealers on the ground that the turnover had crossed Rs.50 Lakhs,” a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice C.V. Karthikeyan observed.
Case Title : Inspector General of Registration & Ors. v. N. Natarajan
Case Number : W.A. No. 2438 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 268
The Madras High Court has ruled that the three-year limitation for recovering deficit stamp duty runs from the date a document is registered and not from the date the Registration Department initiates proceedings. A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose and Justice R. Rajesh Vivekananthan observed: “Therefore, as per second proviso to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, for the purpose of calculating limitation, the starting date for calculating the period of limitation, is the date of registration of the instrument and not the date, when the proceedings were initiated by the Registration Department for collection of deficit stamp duty.”
Case Title : M/s Inzi Controls India Limited v. Joint Commissioner (ST) Appeals & Anr.
Case Number : W.P. Nos. 31862 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 267
The Madras High Court on 8 September set aside appellate orders concerning the classification of air and oil filters manufactured by Inzi Controls India Limited and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. A Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order in a batch of petitions filed by Inzi Controls, which manufactures air and oil filters supplied to automobile companies. The company had classified the filters under Chapter 84, while the Tax Department treated them as motor vehicle parts under Chapter 87.
Deficit Stamp Duty, Interest Demand Must Be Raised Within Reasonable Time: Madras High Court
Case Title : Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) v. K.K.V. Seetharaman & Ors.
Case Number : WA No. 3175 of 2023 and CMP No. 26032 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 269
The Madras High Court on 7 September held that a demand for deficit stamp duty and interest must be raised within a reasonable period, while clarifying that proceedings to determine deficit stamp duty need only be initiated within five years of registration. A Division Bench of Justices Abdul Quddhose and R. Rajesh Vivekananthan dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and upheld the direction to release two documents presented for registration by K.K.V. Seetharaman and K. Anitha.
Case Title : M/s Dhruv Jewellers v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : WP No. 37046 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 271
The Madras High Court has directed the defreezing of a bullion account belonging to a Chennai-based jewellery exporter. It held that a provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act cannot continue beyond the maximum statutory period of 12 months. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order on a plea filed by Dhruv Jewellers, challenging a communication dated August 4, 2022, issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to the bank directing it to freeze the firm's bullion account.
Rajasthan HC
No Customs Interest On Capital Goods Kept In Bonded Warehouse Until Clearance: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title : Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur NCR Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur v. M/s Acme Aklera Power Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : D.B. Custom Appeal No. 1/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 45
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the setting aside of a ₹2.88-crore customs interest demand on solar modules imported by Acme Aklera Power Technology Pvt. Ltd. It held that interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act cannot be charged on capital goods covered by Section 61(1)(a). A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that such capital goods can remain in a warehouse until clearance if they are intended for use in a warehouse where manufacture or other operations are permitted under Section 65. The Court said no fixed period applies to such goods for triggering interest.
Case Title : Greens And Grows v. The Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 46
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a taxpayer who declares the full service tax liability under the voluntary disclosure category of the Sabka Vishwas Scheme cannot later seek adjustment of an earlier tax payment against that declared amount, ruling that the statutory scheme treats the figure voluntarily declared as the tax due. A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that in a voluntary disclosure case, the amount declared by the taxpayer itself is treated as the tax dues under Section 123(d) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.
Rajasthan High Court Declines Writ Against Entry Tax Assessment, Says Appeal Is Equally Efficacious
Case Title : M/s Sika India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Rajasthan
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 867/2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 47
The Rajasthan High Court on 6 August held that a statutory appeal under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 is an equally efficacious remedy against an assessment order, including a challenge based on limitation. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar disposed of a writ petition filed by Sika India Pvt. Ltd. challenging an assessment order dated 18 December 2018 and the consequential demand of Rs. 21.24 lakh towards entry tax, interest and penalty.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Challenge To GST Provision Requiring Supplier Tax Payment For ITC
Case Title : Sumetco Alloys Private Limited v. Union Of India
Case Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9323/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(RAJ) 48
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that actual payment of tax by the supplier is a valid condition for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar dismissed Sumetco Alloys Private Limited's challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as well as its challenge to a Rs. 56.44 crore GST demand for the financial years 2020-21 to 2023-24.
Telangana HC
Case Title : ADV Industrial Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : W.P. No. 3663 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(TEL) 74
The Telangana High Court has recently ruled that a GST refund authority cannot reopen an ITC dispute already decided by an appellate authority merely because the department proposes to challenge that order. An appellate order remains operative unless it is stayed, modified, or set aside in accordance with law. If the department seeks to withhold the refund while further proceedings are pending, it must comply with the requirements of Section 54(11) of the CGST Act.
Uttarakhand HC
Pidilite's SBR Latex Products Covered By 'Rubber' Entry, Taxable At 5%: Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title : Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chairman, Commercial Tax Tribunal & Anr.
Case Number : Commercial Tax Revision No. 10 of 2025 & connected matters
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(UTT) 12
The Uttarakhand High Court held that Pidilite Industries' Dr. Fixit Pidicrete URP and Dr. Fixit Super Latex, being Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) Latex, fall within the term “rubber” under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act and are taxable at 5%, rather than the 13.5% rate applicable to unclassified goods. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay set aside a Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgment and restored the First Appellate Authority's order classifying the products under Entry 96 of Schedule II-B of the Uttarakhand VAT Act.
CESTAT
Interest On EMI Loans Through Credit Cards Not Taxable As Credit Card Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : Citi Bank N.A. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 40742 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 562
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that interest earned on EMI-based loans routed through credit card accounts cannot be treated as consideration for credit card services. This is so merely because the loans are administered and recovered through those accounts. The ruling came while setting aside a ₹249.35 crore service tax demand against Citibank N.A. The bench comprised Judicial Member Ajayan T.V. and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao.
Written Acceptance Of Enhanced Customs Value Does Not Bar Statutory Appeal: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title : Maruti Fabric Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 70412 of 2020 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 563
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has reiterated that an importer's written acceptance of an enhanced assessable value does not, by itself, prevent the importer from challenging the reassessment in appeal. Relying on the Delhi High court's ruling in Niraj Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Patparganj, the tribunal held that accepting a reassessment and giving up a speaking order are not the same as giving up the statutory right to challenge the reassessment.
Case Title : M/s Tasha Gold Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number : Customs Appeal No. 50760 of 2025 with connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 564
The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an importer claiming exemptions under multiple customs notifications must comply with the conditions prescribed under each notification. The tribunal observed that “strict interpretation to all notifications has simultaneously to be given”, and that the conditions of all the notifications have to be strictly complied with to avail their simultaneous benefit.
CESTAT Mumbai Directs Release Of Johnson & Johnson's SAD Refunds Adjusted Against Dropped Demand
Case Title : M/s Johnson & Johnson P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86961 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 565
On 11 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai allowed appeals filed by Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati observed: “This being admission of the Respondent-Department they should have released the amount adjusted against such drawback demand suo moto in favour of the Appellant but this has not been done.”
Mere Suspicion Over Freight Component Cannot Justify Rejection Of CIF Value: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (NS-I) & connected matter
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 86309 & 86310 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM)566
On 10 September, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, held that Customs cannot reject the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value declared by an importer merely on suspicion that freight and insurance were not included, unless there is evidence of any additional payment by the importer. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi allowed appeals filed by I.G. International Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Tarun Arora concerning the import of Royal Gala apples.
Case Title : Lotte India Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41695 and 41696 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 567
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled that 'Processed Milk' emerging during the manufacture of sugar confectionery cannot be treated as an exempted final product merely because the milk itself is exempt from excise duty. The court observed, “An intermediate product captively consumed in, or sent to a job worker for, the manufacture of the dutiable final product cannot be equated with an exempted final product independently cleared from the factory.”
Partial Write-Offs Require CENVAT Credit Reversal From March 1, 2011: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title : GE T&D Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 41950 of 2017
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 568
The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a provision for partial write-off of inputs made on or after March 1, 2011 requires immediate reversal of the corresponding CENVAT credit. The credit can be re-availed if the inputs are subsequently used in manufacturing, subject to the assessee establishing such use. Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar rejected GE T&D Ltd.'s appeal against a ₹8.57 lakh demand relating to CENVAT credit on provisions created for the write-off of raw materials during 2010-11 and 2011-12. The demand also carried applicable interest and penalty.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows MIRC Electronics CENVAT Credit On Commission, Insurance, Detention Charges
Case Title : MIRC Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Bhiwandi
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 87863 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 569
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed MIRC Electronics Ltd. (OnIda Electronics) to claim CENVAT credit on brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance expenses. Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty held that these expenses qualified as “input services” under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal, however, upheld the denial of credit on staff welfare expenses relating to canteen and bus facilities.
Ocean Freight Service Tax Refund Claim Filed After One Year Is Time-Barred: CESTAT Delhi
Case Title : JK Tyre and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51784 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 570
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that a refund claim for service tax paid on ocean freight was subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as applicable to service tax. Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya ruled that the relevant date for calculating the limitation was the date on which the tax was paid. The subsequent finding by the Gujarat High court that the ocean-freight levy was unconstitutional did not take the refund claim outside the limitation prescribed under Section 11B.
GSTAT
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti-Profiteering v. Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/37/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 29
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has recently held that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they provide customers a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of failing to pass on a reduction in GST from 28% to 18% on MI LED Television 4A 80 cm from January 1, 2019. The tribunal found that the company had substantially complied with the anti-profiteering requirement, but had failed to account for ₹10,241.
Clerical Error Cannot Justify Denial Of Refund Of IGST Paid Twice: GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Case Title : M/s. Choice Cashew Industries v. Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram
Case Number : APL/6/TVP/2026, APL/8/TVP/2026 & APL/9/TVP/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (THI) 30
On 17 September, the Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) held that a clerical error in reporting export turnover in GSTR-3B cannot by itself justify denial of refund of IGST paid twice by an exporter. A Division Bench comprising Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram set aside the Orders rejecting Choice Cashew Industries' refund claims and allowed the three appeals with consequential reliefs. The Bench described the error as “making correct entries at wrong places”.