GSTAT New Delhi Orders ₹47.71 Lakh Refund In Anti‑Profiteering Case, Holds Penalty Non‑Retrospective

The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi directed Alton Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer, to pass on Rs. 47.71 lakh, along with interest, to homebuyers for failing to transfer GST input tax credit benefits to them. A Single Bench comprising Technical Member A. Venu Prasad allowed the appeal filed by the Director General of Anti‑Profiteering (DGAP), holding that the developer had engaged in profiteering under Section 171(1) of the CGST...

Confiscation Cannot Survive Once Declared Transaction Value Is Accepted: CESTAT Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 17 March, held that the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained once the declared transaction value is accepted. A Bench comprising Judicial Member Ajay Sharma, set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties imposed on Kumar Impex, reasoning that once the transaction value is accepted, the allegation of undervaluation and resulting revenue...

No Pre-Deposit For Revenue In GSTAT Appeals; Principal Bench Issues Instructions For Filing Appeals

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench has clarified that appeals filed by the Revenue will not require payment of pre-deposit or court fee while issuing instructions on the documents that must accompany appeals filed before the Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In instructions dated March 10, 2025, the tribunal stated that appeals filed through Form APL-05 (appeal filed by Revenue) must include soft copies of the Show Cause...

LiveLawBiz Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 16 - March 22, 2026

SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Income Tax Reassessment Against BPCL Over ₹37.10 Crore Dividend IncomeCase Title : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Case Number : Diary No. 8091 OF 2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 112The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order quashing income tax reassessment proceedings initiated against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for AY 2013-14 in relation to Rs 37.10...

LiveLawBiz Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: March 16 - March 22, 2026

SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Allows Zoomcar To File GST Appeal After Rajasthan HC Disposed Its Writ Without Granting LibertyCase Title : ZOOMCAR INDIA PVT. LTD. VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Case Number : Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8920-8921/2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz SC 113The Supreme Court has recently permitted Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to file a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders arising from proceedings for the financial year 2019–20, after the...

CESTAT Chandigarh Allows Indus Towers Appeals, Upholds CENVAT Credit On Telecom Towers, Shelters, Input Services

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed appeals filed by Indus Towers Ltd., holding that CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services relating to telecom towers and shelters is admissibleThe dispute arose from multiple show cause notices issued for the financial years 2014–15 and 2015–16, alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used for providing passive telecom infrastructure....

Department Cannot Demand 6% Of Value On Exempted Electricity Once Credit Is Reversed: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that once a taxpayer reverses proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods, the Department cannot compel payment of 6% of the value of such goods. The Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao, allowed the appeals by EID Parry India Ltd., holding the demands and penalties unsustainable both on merits and limitation. “The appellant has...

Lower Cost Of Acquisition Without Justification Not Warranted: ITAT Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 27 February held that adopting a lower deemed cost of acquisition than that accepted for co-owners, without justification, was not warranted. A Tribunal Bench comprising Vice-President Dr. B.R.R. Kumar and Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble allowed the appeal of Nirmalaben Kamleshbhai Contractor and allowed deduction under Section 54EC, finding the investment was made within the prescribed period. The Tribunal held that, “adopting...

Crossing Green Channel With Gold Hidden In Paste Form Shows Intent To Smuggle: CESTAT Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a passenger's concealment of gold in paste form on the body and crossing the green channel at an international airport clearly establishes intent to smuggle, justifying absolute confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. A single-member bench of Judicial Member Angad Prasad observed that concealment and non-declaration after opting for the green channel show deliberate evasion: "Once...

Paddy Reaper Without Binder Not Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT Chennai

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 18 March, held that paddy reapers imported without a binder attachment cannot claim concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., which applies only to “reaper-cum-binder” machines. A Bench of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao partly allowed the appeal filed by VST Tillers Tractors Ltd., while also holding that confiscation and penalty cannot be imposed where there...

Service Tax Demand Unsustainable Where Warranty Services Qualify As Works Contract: CESTAT New Delhi

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 19 March, held that a service tax demand cannot be sustained if warranty services qualify as Works Contract Services and all material particulars are duly disclosed, and that invoking the extended period of limitation is improper in the absence of suppression. A Bench of Judicial Member Dr. Rachna Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Electrocare, set aside the service tax demand raised for FY 2014–15,...

Tax Refund Cannot Be Denied As Time-Barred Where Service Was Not Provided: CESTAT New Delhi

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20 March held that refund of service tax paid on services which were ultimately not provided cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya was hearing appeals filed by Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd against rejection of refund claims on the ground of time bar. The...