LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 28 - October 04, 2026
Kapil Dhyani
7 Oct 2026 9:58 AM IST
SUPREME COURT
Case Title : PUNEET BATRA Vs UNION OF INDIA
Case Number : SLP(C) No. 34115-34116/2026
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether GST authorities investigating a case could themselves decide which material seized from an advocate was protected by advocate-client privilege while hearing a plea by advocate Puneet Batra challenging the search of his office and seizure of his computer and documents. A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu raised the question during the hearing after Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Union government, submitted that confidential material could be protected by redacting or segregating it during the investigation.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title : M/s Sai Baba Ent Bhatta v. Commissioner Commercial Tax
Case Number : SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 276 of 2016
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 80
The Allahabad High Court on 11 September held that the Joint Commissioner (Executive) cannot exercise revisional powers under Section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 without an order of authorisation by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Proceedings initiated by an unauthorised officer are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Justice Piyush Agrawal allowed Sai Baba Ent Bhatta's revision against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, holding that there was nothing on record to show that the Commissioner had conferred the revisional power on the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Etawah.
Mere Excise Registration Lapse Not Wilful Suppression If Dept. Knew About Unit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Siraj Ahmad v. Union of India and others
Case Number : WRIT - C No. - 1000173 of 1998
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(ALL) 81
The Allahabad High Court on 25 September held that the extended five-year limitation period under the proviso to Section 11-A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked merely because a manufacturer failed to register or produce declarations, where the department already knew about his manufacturing unit and the goods manufactured there. Justice Irshad Ali quashed the demand of Rs.6,27,086/- in Additional Excise Duty and the equivalent penalty imposed on Siraj Ahmad, proprietor of Siraj Tobacco Company, finding that the department failed to establish wilful suppression or an intention to evade duty.
Bombay HC
'Agreement For Assignment' Label Cannot Bar Stamp Duty Refund For Failed Deal: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Solanki Tea Company Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 948 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 536
On Tuesday, 29 September, the Bombay High Court held that refund of stamp duty cannot be denied merely because a failed property transaction was documented as an “Agreement for Assignment” rather than an “Agreement to Sale”. Justice Amit Borkar directed the Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs. 29.75 lakh paid by Solanki Tea Company Private Limited, holding that the relief available under the Maharashtra Stamp Act depends on whether the transaction intended through the instrument had failed, and not merely on the nomenclature of the document.
Case Title : Kalpataru Gardens Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 1962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 540
The Bombay High Court has held that a delay caused by the Stamp Authority in adjudicating stamp duty cannot be used to deny registration of a document when the party seeking registration was not responsible for the delay. “A substantive legal right accrued to the Petitioners to have the document registered under the provisions of the Registration Act cannot stand defeated, merely on account of some delay, which is definitely not attributable to the party presenting the document for registration, that too for reasons beyond its control,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M. Sethna observed.
Case Title : Richa Shipping Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition (L) No. 32353 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 543
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 110A of the Customs Act does not prescribe a uniform security for provisional release of seized goods and that the quantum must be determined reasonably based on the facts of each case. “Section 110A of the Customs Act does not prescribe a uniform security for any case and the quantum depends on the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of the offence, goods/cargo, value of the seized conveyance, revenue exposure, confiscation/fine/penalty implications, role of the person seeking release and other relevant factors,” a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil held.
Indian-Registered Vehicle Returning From Overseas Trip Not A Fresh Import: Bombay High Court
Case Title : Denis Vanin v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 3619 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 545
An Indian-registered vehicle does not become a fresh foreign import merely because it is brought back to India in a shipping container after an overseas road trip, the Bombay High Court has ruled. A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil held that a Mahindra Thar belonging to Russian national Denis Vanin had legally left India as a private conveyance for travel. Its subsequent placement in a maritime container for safe transit back to India did not transform it into international trade cargo.
Calcutta HC
Failure To Furnish Bank Details For GST Registration Is Curable Lapse: Calcutta High Court
Case Title : Joydeb Karmakar @ Jaydeb Karmakar v. The Union of India & Ors
Case Number : WPA 10299 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(CAL) 237
The Calcutta High Court has observed that failure to furnish bank details, though a violation of Rule 10A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, can be cured by producing the correct bank details and supporting documents to establish the taxpayer's bona fides. Justice Smita Das De made the observation while considering a plea against cancellation of GST registration for non-submission of bank details.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Upholds ₹2.31 Crore Anti-Profiteering Liability Against LICHFL Care Homes
Case Title : LICHFL Care Homes Limited v. Director General Of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13665/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1030
The Delhi High Court has upheld a ₹2.31 crore anti-profiteering liability imposed on LICHFL Care Homes Limited in relation to its residential project 'Jeewan Anand' in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain rejected the developer's contention that CENVAT credit which was legally available under the pre-GST regime but not actually availed should be taken into account while determining the benefit arising from the introduction of GST.
Case Title : Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, Cgst Delhi West And Anr (and batch)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 13883/2026 (and batch)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1034
The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “any person” under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is not confined to a “taxable person” and can include persons who are not registered or liable to be registered under the GST regime. At the same time, the Court ruled that Section 122(1A), which provides for personal penalties in specified fraudulent GST transactions, operates prospectively and can be invoked only in respect of acts or transactions committed on or after January 1, 2021, when the provision came into force.
GST Audit Proceedings Distinct From Section 74 Adjudication; Delhi High Court Declines To Quash SCN
Case Title : Dhruv Medicos Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Gst Circle 5, Audit-I, Delhi & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10213/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1035
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings arising from a GST audit are distinct from the subsequent adjudicatory proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a pharmaceutical distributor under Section 74, observing that the taxpayer could raise all its objections before the competent adjudicating authority.
Case Title : Vishal Oil And Lubricants Co. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7004/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1036
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs authorities cannot calculate interest for a period during which the liability sought to be subjected to interest had itself not been determined. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while partly allowing a petition filed by Vishal Oil and Lubricants Co., challenging the interest reflected in the Customs EDI System in respect of a Bill of Entry filed in 2015.
Separate GST Proceedings Not Barred If Subject Matter Is Different: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Star Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Atimukt Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another And Another
Case Number : W.P.(C) 10175/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that separate GST proceedings against a taxpayer are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the allegations, material relied upon and nature of the alleged defaults in the two proceedings are different. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by Star Traders challenging proceedings initiated by the GST authorities for alleged wrongful availment and passing on of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Delhi High Court Remits VAT Assessment, Directs Fresh Consideration Of Tax Paid On Subsequent Sales
Case Title : Sunglass Palace Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Trade And Taxes Delhi
Case Number : VAT APPEAL 45/2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1043
The Delhi High Court has set aside a VAT assessment concerning alleged stock shortage at a jewellery store, directing the VAT Officer to undertake a fresh assessment after taking into consideration the effect of subsequent sales of the goods found short during a survey. The division bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Value Added Tax.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) v. Sh Bharat Shantilal Shah
Case Number : CUSAA 47/2026
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act can apply to a person alleged to be the “mastermind” or financier who is not in physical possession of the seized goods. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain has framed the question while hearing appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) against CESTAT orders.
Delhi HC Quashes 2005-06 VAT Demand Against Builder Over Lack Of Taxable Turnover Rules
Case Title : Vardhman Properties Ltd. v. The Value Addes Tax Officer & Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 7058/2009
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1047
The Delhi High Court has quashed a Value Added Tax (VAT) demand raised against a builder for the assessment year 2005-06, holding that the levy could not be enforced in the absence of machinery provisions prescribing the manner of determining taxable turnover for works contracts. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain allowed the petition filed by a builder, challenging demand and notice of default assessment.
Case Title : Mangali Impex Ltd v. UoI
Case Number : W.P.(C) 441/2013
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1048
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a 2003 show cause notice issued by the Customs Department to Mangali Impex Ltd., holding that the issue of whether the officer who issued the notice was the “proper officer” has already been settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the department. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing a petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch (SIIB), under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation Over Forged Graduation Degree
Case Title : R. K. Logistics v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : CUSAA 120/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1050
The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker licence after finding that the graduation degree submitted by the broker was forged. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed an appeal filed by R.K. Logistics challenging a CESTAT order which had upheld the revocation of its license, forfeiture of security and imposition of a ₹50,000 penalty.
GST Refund Can Be Withheld During Anti-Evasion Probe Involving Fraud, Malfeasance: Delhi High Court
Case Title : Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner CGST Delhi South And Ors
Case Number : W.P.(C) 15557/2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1051
The Delhi High Court has held that the pendency of an Anti-Evasion investigation, coupled with the Commissioner's finding of suspected fraud or malfeasance, can justify withholding a GST refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even when no appeal against the order granting the refund is pending. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by an electronics exporter, which had sought release of a refund of over ₹3.15 crore arising from an appellate order in its favour.
Case Title : Principal Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M S Micromax Informatics Ltd
Case Number : SERTA 2/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1052
The Delhi High Court has held that ₹154.79 crore deposited by Micromax Informatics Ltd. pursuant to interim orders passed in a patent dispute with Ericsson could not be treated as a payment towards royalty for the purpose of service tax. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the CGST Department against a CESTAT order upholding the dropping of a service tax demand against Micromax.
Already Revoked Customs Broker Licence Cannot Be Revoked Again: Delhi High Court
Case Title : R. K. Logistics v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : CUSAA 119/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1053
The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker licence which has already been revoked cannot be revoked again in separate proceedings, observing that such an action is beyond the statutory provisions and results in multiplicity of litigation. The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain was hearing the appeal of a proprietorship concern which was granted a Customs Broker license in November 2016.
Case Title : A.G. Enterprises v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 9406/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 1054
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a ₹47.93 lakh GST demand against a taxpayer, holding that the mere fact that State and Central GST proceedings involved the same supplier does not, by itself, attract the bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held that the expression “same subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) has to be determined by examining the relevant tax period, particular transactions and invoices, precise Input Tax Credit (ITC) involved, allegations in the respective notices and the liability sought to be determined by each authority.
Case Title : Treco Wire India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case Number : W.P.(C) 583/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(DEL) 1059
The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudication order invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act must disclose the factual basis on which the statutory ingredients of the provision are said to have been satisfied. The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that mere reproduction of the statutory language, without supporting particulars, would not demonstrate the requisite application of mind.
Gujarat HC
Case Title : Hiteshbhai Pravinchandra Kapashi v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number : R/Special Civil Application Nos. 12304 of 2019, 12305 of 2019, 863 of 2020 & 11528 of 2020
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 143
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a Municipal Commissioner cannot use a carpet-area cut-off to move commercial properties from one property-tax category to another without prior State Government approval. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati quashed a March 27, 2015, office order issued by the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, which treated shops and showrooms with a carpet area of more than 35 square metres as NU-1 properties. NU-1 properties carry a multiplier of 5, while NU-2 properties carry a multiplier of 3.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title : M/s Aditya Industries v. State of H.P. and Others
Case Number : CWP No. 3962 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(HP) 33
On 29 September, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a show-cause notice alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) issued to Aditya Industries under Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act on the ground that registrations of certain suppliers had been cancelled as they were found to be non-existent, among other reasons. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ajay Mohan Goel and Yogesh Jaswal emphasised that a GST show-cause notice must set out the facts establishing how the taxpayer committed any of these acts with an intention to evade tax. It cannot invoke Section 74 merely by using the words “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression of facts”.
Karnataka HC
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North v. Spoton Logistics Private Limited
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 175
The Karnataka High Court on 24 September held that an appeal against an order of a Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the classification and taxability of services as “Goods Transport Agency” (GTA) service lies before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not before the High Court under Section 35G. A Division Bench comprising Justices R. Devdas and K. Manmadha Rao dismissed the Central Excise Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru North, against the CESTAT order dated 23 April 2025 concerning Spoton Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Karnataka High Court Says Pregnancy Justifies Absence From GST Proceedings, Remands Ex-Parte Order
Case Title : M/s Ganga Medical Stores v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), DGSTO, Bidar & Anr.
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 202258 of 2026 (T-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 176
The Karnataka High Court on 18 September held that an ex-parte GST adjudication order can be set aside where a taxpayer's non-appearance is sufficiently justified, including on account of pregnancy and related medical complications. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil of the Kalaburagi Bench allowed a writ petition filed by Soumya, proprietrix of Ganga Medical Stores, against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bidar and the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Against Microsoft India In CENVAT Refund Case
Case Title : The Commissioner of Central Tax v. Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 179
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal against a tribunal order holding that Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to a cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on services provided to its overseas entities. A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice K. Manmadha Rao was hearing the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) December 9, 2024 order.
Property Acquisition By State Not A Supply Of Goods Or Services: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Subbaiah A.P. v. The Deputy Commissioner
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 25600 OF 2026 (LA-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KAR) 180
The Karnataka High Court has held that compulsory acquisition of immovable property by the State in exercise of eminent domain does not amount to a supply of goods or services liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). Justice R. Nataraj quashed the deduction of Rs. 12,28,906 towards GST from the compensation payable to four landowners whose house property was acquired for widening the Mysuru-Madikeri Highway.
Madras HC
Case Title : Fiverose Abdul Majeed Bathurudeen v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number : W.P.(MD) Nos.27107
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 278
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed a mother and her minor daughter to approach the Customs authorities for the return of gold jewellery detained at Trichy Airport. The Court directed them to submit an application before the Customs authorities seeking return of the jewellery. Justice C. Saravanan passed the order while disposing of petitions filed by the mother and daughter challenging the detention of gold jewellery weighing 22.20 grams and 30.50 grams, valued at ₹2.89 lakh and ₹3.97 lakh respectively.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Bank Guarantee Condition For Provisional Release Of ASC Impex Goods
Case Title : M/s ASC Impex v. The Commissioner of Customs (Imports - Gr.3)
Case Number : WP No. 25055 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 279
The Madras High Court on 18 September set aside a bank guarantee condition imposed for provisional release of imported Polyester Woven Fabric with PVC Coating detained from ASC Impex over a classification dispute. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed Customs to release the goods on payment of applicable duty and execution of a personal bond for the differential duty. The Bench held: “The purpose of provisional release is to ensure that the goods are not unnecessarily detained during the pendency of investigation or adjudication, while at the same time adequately protecting the interest of the Revenue. The conditions imposed for provisional release must therefore be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.”
Case Title : State Tax Officer v. M/s Sree Amman Traders & connected matters
Case Number : W.A. No. 687 of 2026 & connected writ appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 280
The Madras High Court has ruled that Central and State GST officers can exercise cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even without a separate government notification. The notification is required only when the government wants to impose conditions on the exercise of those powers, the court observed. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of 22 writ appeals. Sixteen were filed by State GST authorities and six by Central GST authorities.
DIN On Tax Appellate Order Does Not Prove It Was Delivered To Taxpayer: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II)
Case Number : CMA Nos. 2132 of 2026 and connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 282
The Madras High Court has held that the presence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on an appellate order does not, by itself, establish that the order was served on the assessee. The court ruled that the DIN cannot be used to establish the date of service for calculating the limitation period for an appeal. A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of nine appeals filed by Greaves Cotton Ltd. challenging CESTAT orders dismissing its Service Tax appeals as barred by limitation.
Charitable Donations Not Taxable As 'Sponsorship' Without Reciprocal Obligation: Madras High Court
Case Title : Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number : CMA(MD) NO. 1121 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 284
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 16 September held that charitable contributions cannot be treated as taxable sponsorship services where the recipient is not under an obligation to provide anything in return. A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi set aside the entire service tax demand raised against Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. They held that the Revenue failed to prove most contributions were sponsorship services, while noting that even the two qualifying transactions were time-barred.
Madras High Court Says Precision Instruments Used In Manufacturing Eligible For 3% Sales Tax Rate
Case Title : The State Of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Bombay Tools Supplying
Case Number : TC Nos. 15 ,16 of 2018 & 91 of 2014
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 285
The Madras High Court has held that precision instruments such as Vernier Calipers, Depth Gauges and Cylinder Gauges used by manufacturers in Tamil Nadu qualify for a 3% concessional tax rate when sold against Form XVII declarations, even though the instruments are not consumed in the manufacturing process A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice E. Manoharan observed that the benefit under Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 extends to “any goods” used in manufacturing in Tamil Nadu, even if such goods are not consumed or incorporated into the finished product.
Case Title : The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise v. The Senior Regional Manager
Case Number : WA(MD) No. 2147 of 2021
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 288
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order setting aside a ₹2.63 crore service tax demand against the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC). The demand was raised for the construction of scientific storage godowns used primarily to store paddy procured from farmers for distribution through the Public Distribution System A Division Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dileep Kumar held that TNCSC qualifies as a “governmental authority” under the Mega Exemption Notification and that the construction of its scientific storage godowns is covered by the exemption available for post-harvest storage infrastructure for agricultural produce.
Purchase Order Date Cannot Determine Import Date For Project Import Duty Benefit: Madras High Court
Case Title : M/s.Vatech Wabag Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs- GR-6
Case Number : WP No. 22752 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 290
The Madras High Court has ruled that a purchase order placed with a foreign supplier before registration of a project contract does not, by itself, determine whether imported goods qualify for the Project Import benefit. The relevant date is when the goods are imported into India, subject to the other requirements under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.
Madras High Court Sets Aside Customs Broker Suspensions, Says 'Immediate Action' Must Be Timely
Case Title : Aala Shipping Services Pvt Ltd v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs
Case Number : W.P No. 21646 of 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 291
The Madras High Court has set aside the suspension of licenses of 11 Customs Brokers, holding that the power to order “immediate suspension” cannot be exercised after an unexplained or substantial delay. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that while “immediate” does not mean that the suspension must be ordered instantaneously, the Customs authorities must act with reasonable promptness once the material necessary for taking action is available.
Patna HC
Case Title : Shashi Kant Singh v. The Union of India Case Number : Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No.3060 of 2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PAT)30
The Patna High Court has directed the Central GST and Central Excise Department to refund ₹1,24,175 to a petitioner after finding that the amount paid towards the mandatory pre-deposit for a service tax appeal was deposited twice The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra also directed the Department to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of the second receipt until payment, along with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Supplier's GST Default Cannot Automatically Trigger ITC Reversal: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title : Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another & connected cases
Case Number : CWP-34296-2024 (O&M) & connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 58
On 1 October, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be mechanically reversed merely because a supplier failed to deposit GST with the Government or because the supplier's registration was subsequently cancelled, including retrospectively. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes actual payment of tax to the Government a condition for claiming ITC. However, it clarified that the provision cannot be applied in isolation.
Case Title : Shaurya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Another
Case Number : CWP - 34296 - 2024
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(PNH) 58
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act but held that the provision cannot be used mechanically to make a purchasing dealer reverse input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, cannot be treated as a standalone provision to automatically shift the seller's tax default to the buyer.
CESTAT
Case Title : Sagar Restaurant v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 75570 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(KOL) 589
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a ₹13.20 lakh service tax demand on a Kolkata-based restaurant. It held that the amounts received under a revenue-sharing arrangement with a caterer were not consideration for providing Business Support Services. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) held that sales incentives received from distributors of alcoholic beverages, linked to the volume of sales, could not be treated as consideration for Advertisement Services.
Case Title : Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeal), CGST, Central Excise and Customs
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 53954 of 2023
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 590
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that an Indian exporter is not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on charges deducted by foreign banks from export proceeds. The tribunal held that the services were received by the Indian bank, not the exporter, which had no contractual relationship with the foreign bank. A coram comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava allowed Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s appeal and set aside the ₹1.88 lakh service tax demand and penalty.
CESTAT Upholds Service Tax On ₹12.66 Lakh JMRC Payment To Chandpole Bazaar Association
Case Title : M/s. Chandpole Bazaar Vyapaar Mandal Samiti v. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST Jaipur, Rajasthan
Case Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 51703 of 2022
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(DEL) 591
On 28 September, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax liability on Rs. 12.66 lakh received by Chandpole Bazaar Vyapaar Mandal Samiti from Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation (JMRC) towards publicity and advertisement activities during Diwali celebrations. A Bench comprising Officiating President Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao upheld the taxability of the amount while setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur's direction to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority.
Case Title : Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise and Shri C. Saravanan v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number : Excise Appeal Nos. 41774 & 41775 of 2018
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(CHE) 592
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has held that electronic data and computer printouts cannot form the basis for determining Central Excise duty liability unless the statutory requirements for their admissibility are met. The tribunal discarded electronic records relied upon to quantify alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of TMT bars by Sri Kamalaganapathy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. It set aside the order to the extent that the demand was quantified using those records and remanded the matter for fresh quantification.
CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Value Enhancement, Finds Import Data Missing From Acceptance Letters
Case Title : M/s Seafox Impex v. Commissioner, Customs, Noida and connected appeals
Case Number : Customs Appeal Nos. 70633/2021, 70695-70699/2025, 70265/2026 and 70266/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(ALL) 593
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad has recently refused to treat an importer's written acceptance of enhanced customs values as conclusive after finding that the letters did not contain the contemporaneous import data cited as the basis for the enhancement. “Given the language as noted in some of the letters as written by the appellant and placed above, there is a wide gap which has not been bridged by the Revenue, in the matter. The contents of this communication cannot therefore be taken on its face value,” the tribunal observed.
Bagasse-Generated Electricity Sold To State Utility Not Liable For 6% CENVAT Reversal: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title : Commissioner of Central GST, Kolhapur CGST Commissionerate v. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited
Case Number : Excise Appeal No. 85501 of 2019
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz CESTAT(MUM) 594
The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that electricity generated from bagasse and sold to a state electricity authority cannot attract the 6% payment under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal observed that “electricity produced from bagasse and sold to electricity authority of State Government cannot be subjected to payment of amount equal to 6% of the value of electricity sold by them under Rule 6(3)”.
GSTAT
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM
Case Number : NAPA/10/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 37
The Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 19 September directed Hyderabad-based cinema operator Devi 70MM to deposit Rs. 81,722 towards profiteering for failing to pass on the benefit of the reduction in GST on cinema admission tickets priced at Rs. 100 or below, which was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from 1 January 2019. A Single Member Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain held that a cinema operator must pass on the benefit of a GST rate reduction to viewers by correspondingly reducing ticket prices.
ITC Cannot Be Denied Solely Over GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A Mismatch: GSTAT Lucknow
Case Title : R R Infrastructure Projects v. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Additional Commissioner, Grade II Appeal & Ors.
Case Number : APL/7/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT(LKN) 38
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow on 18 September held that a mismatch between Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B (a self-declared summary return) and the credit reflected in GSTR-2A (an auto-generated statement of supplier filings), by itself, cannot justify denial of the credit. A Division Bench of Judicial Member Narendra Kumar and Technical Member Alok Chopra remanded R R Infrastructure Projects' ITC dispute for fresh consideration, directing the adjudicating authority to verify the claim on a category-wise and invoice-wise basis.
Case Title : Amit Tyagi v. Tata Play Limited, Managing Director & CEO
Case Number : APL/112/AGR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (AGR) 39
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra, on 10 September differed on whether mentioning an entirely different vehicle number in an e-way bill can attract penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act. A Split Bench of Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order deleting a Rs. 10,10,186 penalty imposed on Tata Play Limited after its vehicle was intercepted while transporting goods from Delhi to Lucknow.
GSTAT New Delhi Directs Bengal Emami Housing To Pass On ₹70.58 Lakh ITC Benefit To Homebuyers
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiterring v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/141/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 40
The Delhi Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed Bengal Emami Housing Ltd. to pay ₹70.58 lakh, including GST, to eligible homebuyers of its “Swan Court” project in Kolkata on account of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit. The Division Bench comprising President Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta held that the profiteering computation should be confined to the Higher Income Group (HIG) category.
GSTAT Delhi Bench Sets Aside Profiteering Proceedings Against Vertex Homes Over ITC Benefit
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiterring v. Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number : NAPA/87/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 41
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi, on 2 September set aside profiteering proceedings against Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd. concerning its “Vertex Panache” project in Hyderabad, after finding that the increase in construction costs had offset the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Bench comprising Technical Member Anil Kumar Gupta accepted the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering's (DGAP) revised calculation of nil profiteering, after it deducted Rs. 3.49 crore in verified cost escalation from the developer's additional ITC benefit of Rs. 2.47 crore.
GSTAT Bengaluru Sets Aside 100% Penalty On I-NXT, Says ITC Mismatch Alone Can't Trigger Penalty
Case Title : I-NXT v. Sandeep Banga, Commissioner, Bengaluru Zone & Ors.
Case Number : APL/16/BUR/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (BLR) 42
The Bengaluru Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 15 September held that an ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot, by itself, attract Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without establishing a link between the mismatch and fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman allowed I-NXT's appeal and set aside the 100% penalty imposed under Section 74.
Case Title : Mandalaneni Srinivasarao v. Sri Sai Traders
Case Number : APL/60/HYD/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (HYD) 43
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Hyderabad, on 18 September held that the GST Department cannot challenge orders restoring GST registrations after acting upon those orders and restoring the registrations. A Two-Member Bench comprising Judicial Member A P Ravi and Technical Member Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas disposed of 16 Department appeals as not maintainable, holding that they had become infructuous after the registrations were restored.
GSTAT Lucknow Says Mere E-Invoice Lapse Cannot Establish Tax Evasion, Sets Aside ₹63.72 Lakh Penalty
Case Title : VLM Null Group v. The Additional Commissioner, Grade II, Third & Ors.
Case Number : APL/98/LCK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (LCK) 44
The Lucknow Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 28 September held that a procedural lapse in generating an e-invoice, without material showing tax evasion, cannot by itself warrant penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Technical Member Arvind Kumar allowed VLM Null Group's appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II, State Tax, Kanpur, imposing a penalty of Rs. 63.72 lakh.
Wrongful ITC Availment Alone Cannot Justify Tax Evasion Proceedings: Kolkata GSTAT
Case Title : Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate v. Power Tech Global Private Limited
Case Number : APL/62/KLK/2026, APL/74/KLK/2026 and APL/75/KLK/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (KOL) 46
The Kolkata Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has held that invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires material establishing deliberate suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement with an intent to evade tax, and cannot rest merely on an allegation of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). A Two Member Bench comprising Judicial Member S.G. Chattopadhyay and Technical Member Bijoy Kumar Kar partly allowed the Revenue's appeals against Power Tech Global Private Limited, while holding that the proceedings under Section 74 were unsustainable and directing re-determination of the liability under Section 75(2).
Taxpayer Can Seek GST Refund Even If Not Party To Case Striking Down Levy: GSTAT Surat
Case Title : Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise v. M/s Filatex India Limited
Case Number : APL/11/SRT/2026 to APL/56/SRT/2026
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (SUR) 45
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), at Surat, has held that a taxpayer can claim a refund of tax paid under a levy subsequently declared unconstitutional, even if the taxpayer was not a party to the proceedings in which the levy was struck down. “Therefore, a taxpayer may claim refund of tax collected under a levy subsequently declared ultra vires or unconstitutional in a judgment even if he was not a party to such judgment,” the tribunal held.
Case Title : DGAP, DG Anti-Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Alankar Cinema
Case Number : NAPA/124/PB/2025
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 47
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench at Delhi, has held that a cinema operator cannot rely on State Government price regulations to avoid passing on the benefit of a GST rate reduction to viewers. A single member coram of Judicial Member Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, observed that the orders relied on by Alankar Cinema did not prohibit it from reducing ticket prices after GST on cinema tickets was cut from 18% to 12% from January 1, 2019.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Loading Ballast Into Railway Wagons Is Separate Service, Attracts 18% GST: Karnataka AAR
Case Title : In re: M/s S.K. Swamy and Company
Case Number : KAR ADRG/42/2026
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that supply of ballast to the Railways and its subsequent loading into railway wagons are separate and independently identifiable supplies. The two activities cannot be treated as a composite supply merely because they arise from the same tender or work order. A Bench comprising Central Member Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao and State Member Sivakumar S. Itagi, passed a ruling in an application filed by S.K. Swamy and Company concerning the GST rate applicable to loading ballast into Railway-owned wagons using JCB loaders.
Outdoor Playground Equipment Attracts 5% GST, Gym Equipment 18%: Gujarat AAR
Case Title : In re: M/S Sundek Sports Private Limited
Case Number : GUJ/GAAR/R/2026/38
On 29 September, the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that outdoor playground equipment and outdoor gym equipment are classifiable under Heading 9506, with their spare parts generally following the classification of the equipment, while bearings are separately classifiable under Heading 8482. A Bench comprising SGST Member Sushma Vora and CGST Member Vishal Malani passed the ruling on an application by Sundek Sports Pvt. Ltd. It also held that outdoor playground equipment and its spare parts attract 5% GST, while outdoor gym equipment, its spare parts and bearings attract 18% GST.