SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Oil Marketing Companies For Inter-Supply Of Petroleum ProductsCase Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters)Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5642 OF 2009In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5642 OF 2009
In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature.
The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.
Case Name: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. V. PRISM CEMENT LIMITED & ANR.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.13928 OF 2015
The Supreme Court yesterday (on February 12) held that though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government's right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the amendment is prospective. Thus, it would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.
The amended Act nowhere stipulates that rights previously accrued stand nullified or all previous exemptions stand cancelled or revoked., the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.
Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme Court
Case Title – State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 2212 of 2024
The Supreme Court recently held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date.
This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.
Case Name: M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS.
Case no.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025
The Supreme Court is to decide whether the time limit for adjudicating show cause notice and passing an order can be extended by the issuance of notifications under Section 168-A of the GST Act. This provision empowers the Government to issue notification for extending the time limit prescribed under the Act which cannot be complied with due to force majeure.
“The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.,” remarked the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Thursday(February 27) delivered a significant ruling on the powers of arrest under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Customs Act.
The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 27) observed that there was some merit in the allegation that tax officials coerce assesses to pay the Goods and Services Tax with the threat of arrest. This observation was made by the Court on the basis of data.
The Court said that if any person is feeling coerced to pay GST, they can approach the writ court for refund of the tax paid by them under coercion. The Court also said that the officers who indulge in such coercion must be dealt with departmentally.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court has overruled its previous decisions which held that anticipatory bail applications were not maintainable with respect to offences under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Bela Trivedi overruled the two-judge bench judgments in State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and Another and Bharat Bhushan v. Director General of GST Intelligence, Nagpur Zonal Unit Through Its Investigating officer which held that a person summoned under the GST Act cannot file anticipatory bail application and that the only remedy was to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
An arrest under the Goods and Services Act cannot be carried out merely on the basis of suspicion, the Supreme Court stated. Such an arrest cannot be carried out merely to investigate if a cognizable and non-bailable offence has been committed.
The Court held that the arrest must proceed on the belief supported by reasons relying on material that the conditions specified in sub-section (5) of Section 132 are satisfied. This means that there has to be a satisfaction that a cognizable and non-bailable offence has been committed.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Dealing with a challenge to penal provisions of the Customs Act, the Supreme Court today observed that 'customs officers' are not 'police officers' and that they must satisfy a higher threshold of "reasons to believe" before arresting an accused.
A bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices MM Sundresh, Bela M Trivedi made the observation while delivering verdict in a batch of 279 petitions challenging the penal provisions in the Customs Act, CGST/SGST Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution.
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of GST Act Provisions On Arrest & Summons
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, which provide for the power to arrest and the power to summon. The Constitutionality of these provisions were challenged on the ground that the Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact them.
The petitioners argued that Article 246-A of the Constitution, while conferring legislative powers on Parliament and State Legislatures to levy and collect GST, does not explicitly authorize the violations thereof to be made criminal offences. Referring to Entry 93 of List I to the Seventh Schedule, it was submitted that the Parliament can enact criminal provisions only for the matters in List I. It was further argued that the power to summon, arrest and prosecute are not ancillary and incidental to the power of levying GST and therefore, are beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament under Article 246-A of the Constitution.
Case title: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
Case no.: U. P. LUCKNOW vs. M/S SAMSUNG (INDIA) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.| Diary No. - 20066/2021
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.
Case title : CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS v. M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6332/2025
The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Case title: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6334/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act 2017. Here the assessee wanted to rectify the returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1. The application to rectify was rejected on the ground that the time to rectify had ended.
Case Title: GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA
In a key decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.
The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To West Bengal Taxes On Entry Of Goods Act
Case Title – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7295/2025
The Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas Act, 2012, as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, along with related Rules and notifications.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan recently issued notice returnable on April 22, 2025 in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Finance Act amended various provisions of the Entry Tax Act with retrospective effect.
Case Title: NEHA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6553 OF 2016
Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.
“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no facility for input tax credit shall be allowed to a dealer with respect to the purchase of any goods where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Act.”, the Court observed.
Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus COMBINED TRADERS
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2025
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeal, which challenged the High Court's decision of declaring Rule 17(2) as ultra vires due to inconsistency between the Central and State Laws. The reason being that the Rajasthan CST Rules allowed the cancellation of Form C if obtained fraudulently, however, the Central Rules (Registration and Turnover Rules, 1957) prescribe Form C but do not provide for its cancellation.
Case Title: M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – II
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 129-130 OF 2011
The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as the test report used to justify the reclassification of the petrochemicals, which led to the higher duty.
Case : Vineet Jain vs Union of India
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2269 OF 2025
The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine.
Case Title: M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KOLKATA
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8028 OF 2010
The Supreme Court yesterday (May 1) ruled that engineering and technical service fees paid by the importer must be included in the assessable value of imported spare parts under the Customs Act, 1962.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld that the 8% technical and engineering fee charged to the appellant(Coal India) should be included in the assessable value for determining customs duty.
Case Title: C.T. KOCHOUSEPH VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 941 – 945 OF 2004 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
"The challenge to the constitutional validity must be rejected on the basis of the ratio elucidated by this Court in Kandaswami (supra), Hotel Balaji (supra) and Devi Dass (supra)...Hotel Balaji (supra) specifically upholds the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, disagreeing with the opinion/ratio expressed in Goodyear (supra)", said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, R Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Upholds Kerala's Luxury Tax On Cable TV As Constitutionally Valid
Case Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013
The Supreme Court today (May 22) upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and allowed Kerala's appeal, affirming the state's power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”
The Court clarified that the service tax imposed by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not conflict with state taxes on entertainment, and therefore, no constitutional overlap exists between central and state levies.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. Versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. AND ORS. (and connect cases)
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.9301 OF 2013
While upholding the State's authority to impose entertainment tax on broadcasting services like cable TV, digital streaming, and OTT platforms, the Supreme Court held that both the Centre and the State are empowered to levy service tax and entertainment tax, respectively, on assessees such as cable operators and entertainment service providers.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh held that broadcasting constitutes a form of communication, while entertainment falls under the category of luxuries as outlined in Entry 62 of List II. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, it reasoned that entertainment can be delivered through means of communication, making broadcasting merely incidental to it. As such, it does not directly encroach upon matters within the Union List. Consequently, both taxes function within their respective constitutional spheres, allowing the Centre and the State to concurrently impose service tax and entertainment tax on the activities undertaken by an assessee.
Case Title: M/S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3833-3835 OF 2025
The Supreme Court has held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, which requires a person seeking refund of duty to show that the burden was not passed on to the customer, is not applicable when refund is sought of a wrongly invoked bank guarantee.
This is because encashment of bank guarantees by the Customs Department cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Hence, neither Section 27 nor the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable.
Circular Clarifying Previous Notifications On Fiscal Duty Has Retrospective Effect : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S SURAJ IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case no.: SLP (C) Nos. 26178-79 OF 2016
The Supreme Court recently held that a circular/notification issued by the revenue department, clarifying or explaining a fiscal regulation, has to be given retrospective effect.
In the facts of the case at hand, the Court held that a Circular dated 17.09.2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had to be given retrospective effect as it clarified certain previous notifications on customs duty.
Case : M/S. STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - III
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3816-3817 OF 2025
The Supreme Court held that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” which were exempted from service tax as per the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2012 and 2014 under the Finance Act, 1994.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the assessment orders issued against M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics Ltd for over Rs 2 crores as service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.
Case Title: M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 727
The Supreme Court upheld the MP High Court's decision to levy the 'entry tax' on the beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (“IMFL”) manufacturers for transporting goods into local areas for sale.
The Court reasoned that the liquor manufacturers "cause entry" of goods into local areas, making them liable for tax under Section 2(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (“M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976”), even if sales occur through state-controlled warehouses.
Cause Title: M/S ASP TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that by mere payment of penalty for the release of the goods detained under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the assessee cannot be held to have waived the right to file a statutory appeal.
The Court ruled that mere payment of penalty for the release of goods detained during transit under the GST regime does not conclude proceedings unless a formal, reasoned order is passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.
Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court
Case Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner. During the hearing, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”
Cause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Cause Title: M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.
Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.
Cause Title: M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 29) ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."
“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.
Cause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.
The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.
Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From Korea
Cause Title: M/S L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
The Supreme Court recently granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country with which India has a full customs duty exemption agreement is sufficient to claim such exemption.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the LG Electronics appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) order, that declined LG's plea for seeking exemption from custom duty payment for imported watches reasoning that imported watches falls under CTH 8517 good's, which attracted a higher duty, and raised a demand along with penalties.
Cause Title: M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy when the taxing statutes do not authorize the imposition of tax. It added that tax authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods by administrative sanction.
“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.”, the court observed.
Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and connected cases
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2024
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), upholding the HC's view that failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 entitles the person to release of the seized goods.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta further held that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act does not stop the operation of Section 110(2), which mandates issuance of a show-cause notice within six months of the seizure.
Cause Title: M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II
The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.19) held that converting imported gas-generating sets (Gensets) into containerized “Power Packs” by placing them in steel containers and fitting them with essential components amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the final product liable to excise duty.
“The process of placing the Genset within the steel container and fitting that container with additional, integral components brings into existence a new, distinct, and marketable commodity. This process would thus amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Act, 1944. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured.”, the court held.
Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHER VERSUS M/S ADANI POWER LTD.
Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from paying export duty under the Customs Act, 1962, for the movement of goods from DTA to SEZ.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which ruled that export duty cannot be levied for movement from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to an SEZ. The High Court had held that it was a domestic supply and not an export outside India, therefore exempted from the payment of the export duty.
Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority's Appeal Against Service Tax Levy For Cargo Handling
Case : Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) challenging the levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that while “handling of export cargo” is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a “taxable service” in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004.
Case : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd
Case no.: Diary No. 49140-2025
The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.
Cause Title: M/S. ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court
Case Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015
The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.
“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.
Supreme Court To Examine If Transfer Of Leasehold Rights Attracts GST
Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 52380/2025
Case Title – Union Of India & Anr. v. M/S Life Sciences Chemicals & Anr.
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a “transfer of land” or amounts to a “supply of service” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dealing with Centre's plea challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building does not amount to a taxable supply under the GST Act.
Case Title: FEDERATION OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Diary No. 60671/2025
The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500 crores, which stands locked in dealers ledgers as a consequence of recent revision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
Briefly put, a notification issued on September 17 scrapped the compensation cess on motor vehicles. This was done, as per the FADA, "without providing any transitional or refund mechanism". Therefore, dealers' accumulated compensation cess lapsed on September 22 and may not be carried forward.
Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Seeking Rs 93 Lakh Duty On Lulu Malls' Imported Trampolines
Case Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS V LULU INTERNATIONAL SHOPPLING MALLS PVT. LTD
Case Number: Diary No. 47976/2025
The Supreme Court recently (October 31) dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department challenging the classification and valuation of imported amusement equipment, including trampolines, by Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mittal and Prasanna B Varale held that there was no error in the classification of the trampolines and other equipment under the category of gymnastics equipment.
Supreme Court Dismisses Rs 244 Crore Service Tax Plea Against Bharti Airtel Over Employee Scheme
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram, Haryana vs Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Case Number: Diary No. 49079/2025
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed a nearly Rs 244 crore service tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram, against telecom giant Bharti Airtel Ltd. The dispute concerned the company's Airtel Employees Services Scheme (AESS), which offered free or discounted telecom services to its employees.
The appeal challenged a January 27, 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, which had set aside the entire tax demand. A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan upheld the tribunal's order, observing "We find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Patanjali Foods' Rs 2.97 Crore Excise Duty Refund Appeal
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 57088/2025
The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in an appeal filed by Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) seeking a refund of Rs 2.97 crore charged by the tax department in connection with an excise duty dispute.
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar issued notice on both the main appeal and the application seeking condonation of delay.
Transfer Of Title In Immovable Property Doesn't Attract Service Tax : Supreme Court
Case : Commissioner of Service Tax v M/s Elegant Developers
The Supreme Court has clarified that an activity which merely involves the transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale cannot be treated as a “service” under the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, such transactions lie outside the ambit of service tax.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict while dismissing an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi against M/s Elegant Developers, a partnership firm based in Allahabad. The Revenue had challenged a 2019 decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had set aside a tax demand of over Rs 10 crore against the firm.
Cause Title: LIPI BOILERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD
The Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) dismissed the Revenue Department's excise duty demand against a company that had manufactured and erected a large boiler at a customer's site, holding that the full contract value could not be subjected to central excise duty. The Court clarified that parts bought out externally and supplied to the customer for assembly, but not actually used by the manufacturer, would not attract excise duty.
“we arrive at the finding that the final product that emerges as a result of performing the obligations under the contract, does not constitute excisable goods under the Act, 1944. Consequently, the base value of the boiler on which excise duty is to be levied, cannot be equated with the total contract price. Therefore, the price of the bought out parts cannot be included in the value of the boiler for the purpose of computing central excise duty under the Act, 1944.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta while allowing the company's appeal against the CESTAT order which upheld the Revenue's demand for additional excise duty on bought out item.
Supreme Court Upholds View That Eden Gardens Not A 'Public Place' For Levy Of Advertisement Tax
Case Title: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. Versus THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL AND ORS.
Case no.: SLP(C) No. 28566/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Calcutta High Court order which held that Eden Gardens stadium was not a "public place" for the purpose of levying advertisement tax under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for petitioner-Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for respondents.
Supreme Court Leaves Open Question Whether Customs Can Seize Goods Which Left Port
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO VERSUS EPSILON EYE CARE PVT. LTD.
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain an appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) view that once goods are cleared from the port, customs authorities lose their power to confiscate them for violations such as non-compliance with license requirements.
However, the bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan left open the question whether the Customs Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port.
Cause Title: COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS NARSIBHAI KARAMSIBHAI GAJERA & ORS.
The Supreme Court has held that manufacturers cannot claim central excise duty exemption for processed cotton fabrics if power is used at any stage of the manufacturing chain, even when the work is carried out through separate units. The Court restored a duty and penalty demand that had been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
To claim excise duty exemption for 'cotton fabrics' processed without the aid of power or steam, the manufacturing stages must be completely independent; if the final product cannot emerge without each interlinked process, including those involving power, the exemption cannot be availed.
Case Title: KULDIPAK RAJESH PRASHAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case no.: W.P.(C) No. 1140/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice on a petition filed by a person suffering visual impairment seeking that the government revive its GST Concession scheme for the purchase of cars by persons with orthopaedic disability and extend it to all Persons with Disabilities, irrespective of the nature of their disability.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the Union has taken different stands before different High Courts, which has resulted in conflicting opinions on the government's now-discontinued scheme. The counsel also informed the Court that the scheme existed in one form or another since 1999 but came to be withdrawn in 2025.
Case : The State of Karnataka v Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish
In a significant judgment that will have wide ramifications for hostel and paying guest (PG) accommodation sectors, the Supreme Court held that the exemption from Goods and Services Tax (GST) available for renting residential dwellings continues to apply even when the lessee sub-leases the premises to provide hostel or PG accommodation. The Court ruled that the exemption under Entry 13 of the GST Exemption Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.06.2017 does not require the lessee to personally use the property as a residence, so long as the ultimate use of the premises is residential in nature.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan delivered the ruling while deciding a dispute concerning a four-storeyed residential building with 42 rooms in Karnataka. The building's owner had leased it to M/s DTwelve Spaces Private Limited, a company operating as an aggregator providing long-term hostel accommodation to students and working women. The tax authorities took the view that GST at 18 percent was payable on the rental transaction because the lessee was a commercial entity and did not itself occupy the premises as a residence. Both the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) upheld this interpretation. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside the rulings of AAAR and AAR, holding that the GST exemption will apply. Challenging the High Court's judgment ,the revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1892 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of Rs.17,49,330/- with NOIDA. Petitioner pleaded that he filed his return under Section 39 of the GST Act. The tax deposited by the petitioner to NOIDA was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B due to mistake on part of NOIDA.
Case Title: M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of seller's registration.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the record shows that the registration of the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 and not from its inception which goes to show that the transaction between petitioner and seller was registered and having valid registration in his favour.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sethia (Deceased) v. State of U.P. and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 917 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.”
Case Title: Merino Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1406 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by the assesee.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “Innumerable cases have come before this Court where show cause notices have been issued and ex-parte assessments made after the cancellation of the GST registration of the firm, based on uploading of notices on the portal, without ensuring personal service of the notices.”
Claims Of GST Department Are Barred Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1716 of 2025
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, the Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of Goods and Service Tax Department are barred after the aproval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held, “In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process. The Supreme Court has categorically held the same as indicated above.”
Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the assesee to download the complete E-way Bill including Part-B of the E-way Bill for transactions after April 2018. Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,
“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024.”
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1386 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the authority on verification has mentioned the details of the goods found and verified the correctness of the invoices and the goods in transit, it cannot be permitted to change the stand later and say that the goods were not in accordance with the invoice.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”
Allahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali's Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Case Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and Others
Case no.: WRIT-TAX NO. 1603 OF 2024
The Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of proceedings under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited's 3 plants even though proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have been dropped against them.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held, “Under the present GST regime, persons who are not liable to pay tax under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act may very well be liable for penalties as described in the twenty-one sub-sections of Section 122(1) and under sub-sections 122(2) and 122(3).”
Case Title: M/S Akriti Food Industry Llp v. State Of UP And 3 Others
Case no.: [WRIT TAX No. - 2070 of 2024]
While directing that the order under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 uploaded in the “Additional Notices and Tabs” on the GST portal be treated as the show cause notice, the Allahabad High Court observed,
“If in a decision making procedure adopted by the authority is de hors the provisions of the act or rules framed thereunder, it is liable to be rendered as flawed one.”
Case Title:- M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intention to evade tax is established by the fact that the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill and the goods taxable at 18% were taxed only at 5%.
The Court held that after 2018, it was mandatory for the assesee to download e-way bill with goods in transit. “It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way bill would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1022 of 2021
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the cogent material. The burden of proof is shifting to the department only in the re-assessment proceeding or subsequent proceeding not being the original proceeding. In other words, the assessee in the original proceeding is duty bound to bring the material on record in support of its claim but in the subsequent proceeding i.e. re-assessment proceedings, the burden shifts on the revenue.”
Case Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the invoices issued in favour of such assessee are fake.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and seeking release of the goods confiscated under Section 129(1)(a) by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar.
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court
Case title: - M/S Rajdhani Udyog v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3684 of 2025
While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law.
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that, “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”
Case Title: M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 389 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Once actual movement of goods as well as payment of tax by the respondent authorities have been proved by the petitioner to which no rebuttal has been brought on record at any stage, proceedings under section 74 of the Act cannot be justified.”
Case Title: Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to office of the Solicitor General of India and Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 127 of the Central and State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was issued an order under Section 127, which he allegedly came to know of in 2025. It has been pleaded that the orders were neither sent to the petitioner nor uploaded on the portal. Petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted that proceedings under Section 74 were initiated regarding transactions made by the petitioner with another assesee, which were later dropped.
Case Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken.”
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to decide appeal against the assessment order passed by JaI Sansthan or any other agency under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act.
Petitioner, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri, Kanpur is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of sophisticated Aircrafts and other Defence equipments and services and caters to the Defence services in India and is controlled by and works under the Ministry of Defence.
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.110 Crore GST Demand On Dabur's Hajmola Candy
Case Title: M/S Dabur India Ltd v Union of India and Ors
Case Number: WRIT TAX No. - 4709 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court on October 10 stayed a ₹110 crore GST show cause notice issued to Dabur India Ltd. over the classification of its Hajmola Candy Tablets.
A bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the interim order in a petition filed by Dabur challenging the DGGI notice issued earlier this year.
CENVAT Rules Cannot Apply Retrospectively To Concluded MODVAT Proceedings: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Modi Rubber Limited v. Union Of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 872 of 2021
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that where proceedings under the MODVAT (Modified Value Added Tax) Scheme had concluded prior to the introduction of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Rules, it would not be open to the revenue department to issue fresh notices against the assessee under the new scheme.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held that, "The changed law did not make any specific provision to enable the revenue authorities to initiate a fresh proceedings, where earlier proceedings had already been initiated and concluded under the MODVAT scheme. Therefore, the revenue authority did not acquire the jurisdiction to issue the second Show Cause Notice dated 02.04.1998, on the issue that stood concluded by earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2000.”
Case Title: M/S Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4654 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while acting under Rule 86A of the UPGST Rules, authorities must record 'reason to believe' in 'writing'. It held that not doing so would be contrary to the purpose of the Rule.
“It may not forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime. Therefore, any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain and consequentially tax payments without fulfulling statutory tax requirements, without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of law - to record 'reasons to believe', 'in writing',” held the division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla.
Case Title: M/s Smm Infratech Private Limited v. State of U.P.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1121 of 2025
Recently, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that under the UPGST Act, a lien cannot be created on the assessee's bank account an year subsequent to the payment of taxes.
“It is clear that these liens have been created after more than a year of the petitioner having paid his taxes. Furthermore, the deeming fiction under Section 62(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would apply, and any further demands should have been withdrawn by the authorities,” held the division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar.
Case Title: M/s Century Laminating Company Ltd. Thru Deputy Manager v. Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control Board
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 1001686 of 2004
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry.
“In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or incidental process carried on by a particular industry in running its business,” held Justice Irshad Ali.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1021 of 2025
Case name: M/S Vimlesh Kumar Contractor v. State of U.P. and 3 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that GST Authorities cannot claim jurisdiction for levying tax, penalty, and interest on work that was concluded prior to the implementation of the GST Act.
Notices were issued to the petitioner, a work contractor, for the Financial Year 2018-19 under the GST Act. The petitioner was unable to reply to the notices in time. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed, levying tax, penalty and interest on him. Aggrieved, he sought relief before the High Court.
Case Title: Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P. And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 15409 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that where loss is caused to the State, a State Tax Officer may not be suspended for mere delay in submitting a report. Justice Vikas Budhwar held that this would be especially impermissible in a case where the authority to act on the report in time chooses not to do so.
He held that, despite the fact that the petitioner submitted the report with delay, the authority to take action was the Assistant Commissioner. It was held that the petitioner could not be suspended in a case where the appropriate authority chose not to cancel the GST registration of the firm in question.
Case Title: M/s Gospell Press Thru. Partner Mr. Rajiv Goyal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax LKO And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1283 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated that notices under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for confiscation and levy of penalty, could not be issued for alleged violation of maintenance of accounts and records as required under Section 35 of the Act.
It was held that such notices under Section 130 could only be issued once the department had determined the liability of tax under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.
Cannot Cancel GST Registration Without Passing Reasoned Speaking Order: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/s Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. State of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1915 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that while cancelling GST registrations, authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders. It held that doing otherwise would render the order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
“Once the impugned cancellation order has been passed without putting any proper notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same itself is in violation of principles of natural justice,” held Justice Piyush Agarwal.
Case Title: M/S Sun Glass Works Private Limited v. The State of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2192 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that nothing under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the relevant rules, and notifications, allows the authorities to reserve judgements on the fixed date and pass them later, especially without informing the assessee.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 17.02.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent passed an order levying tax and penalty, without providing the relevant materials or an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: M/s Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of UP and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not be invoked where excess stock was found at the time of survey
While dealing with a case regarding a search conducted under the GST Act, where upon finding discrepancies, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under S. 130 of the Act, Justice Piyush Agarwal held, “A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.”
Case Title: M/S Anil Art And Craft Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5924 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the cancellation of GST registration of a business entity leads to it economic death and it is sine qua non that a reasoned order is passed by the authority for cancelling the registration of an assesee.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed: “We are equally mindful that the order of cancellation of registration causes deep adverse impact on the conduct of business of any registered individual. Neither the petitioner shall remain entitled to issue Tax Invoices nor may be entitled to avail tax ITC or to pass on ITC. Under the GST regime, it announces the economic death of the business entity.”
Case Title: M/S Prostar M Info Systems Limited v. State of U.P. and 3 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1469 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment.
Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities.
Case title: M/S Anish Transport Company v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 324 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that evasion of tax cannot be attributed to the transporter when consignor accepts error in loading goods.
Certain goods were intercepted in transit from Dehradun to Delhi. After notices were issued to the cosigner/ consignee, the goods were released in their favour. Subsequently, an order alleging intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the GST Act was passed against the petitioner who was merely a transporter of the goods. Appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
GST | Allahabad High Court Grants Stay On Composite Show Cause Notice For Multiple Assessment Years
Case Title: M/S S.D. Freshners Ltd. Through Its Director Shri Mahesh Prasad And Another Versus Union Of India And 5 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 7500 of 2025
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has granted stay on composite show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence where multiple assessment years have been clubbed in one show cause notice.
Petitioner approached the High Court against a single show cause notice issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad for tax period starting from August 2019 to September 2023. It was pleaded that the same could not be done as each tax period is a separate cause of action.
Case Title: Adboulevard Media Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut And Another
On Thursday, Allahabad High Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut for filing a misleading personal affidavit before the Court despite being given 2 opportunities.
Noting that the impugned order did not show any consideration of the circulars and only quoted a report signed by an appropriate office, Justice Piyush Agrawal observed “This shows the functioning of the GST Department. The officers has courage not only to pass the perverse order but filed his personal affidavit trying to mislead the Court stating that after due consideration the order has been passed.”
Case Title: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 2707 of 2025
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that the provisions of Information Technology Act regarding dispatch and receipt of service are not applicable to service made under Section 169 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The six modes of service provided under Section 169(1) of the State/Central GST Act are: (a) tendering directly or by messenger; (b) dispatch by speed post, etc. with acknowledgement due; (c) sending communication by email; (d) by making available on the common portal; (e) by publication in a newspaper and; (f) by affixation.
Case Title: M/S Prakash Medical Stores v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 5865 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be granted to a party for filing appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act where a rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act was filed within time.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran held, “to apply the underlying principle of Section 14 Limitation Act, wherever an application seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record may be filed within time, as may have been done in the present case, the application of the underlying principle of Section 14 Limitation Act, may not be examined with a microscope, any further. To the extent that application is filed 'bona fide' in 'good faith' and is pursued, that principle would apply, without doubt. The only exception to that principle may be-where the application seeking rectification of a mistake is itself filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 161 of the Act. There no such benefit may arise.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case title: Ravindra Muthavarapu v. The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION Nos.17995, 17997, 18001, 18018, 18019 & 18024 of 2024
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot be used by the Excise Department to recover its dues from the directors of a liquidated company. Section 88(3) states that the tax, interest or penalty of a private company, which has been wondup can be recovered from the directors of the company, subject to certain conditions, when such tax, penalty and interest is determined under the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao observed, “This can only mean that tax, penalty or interest which had been determined under the CGST Act, alone can be recovered from the directors of private company which are under liquidation, subject to the condition set out in Section 88(3) of the CGST Act.”
Sale Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide Is Liable To Be Taxed At 5%: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12529/2024
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the sale of liquid carbon dioxide is liable to be taxed at 5%.
The Bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao were addressing the issue of whether purified liquid Carbon Dioxide gas falls in the unclassified category of goods i.e., Schedule-V to the VAT Act, and is liable to be taxed @ 14.5% instead of 5%.
Case Title: Sterling And Wilson Private Limited v. The Joint Commissioner and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 20096/2020
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the supply of solar generating power station is a composite supply and it would not amount to a works contract. Also, it is a moveable property and attracted 5% GST.
The Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed that “a 'works contract' is also a composite supply. However, there could be a 'composite supply', which does not fall within the ambit of 'works contract'….. The distinction between 'works contract' and a 'composite supply' would be whether the end product handed over to the contractee, is moveable or immoveable property.”
Case title: M/s. Mohan Spintex India Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NOs: 7158/2018,10587/2016, 2514/2020, 6480/2020, 6597/2020, 3111/2021, 40351/2022, 40354/2022, 23960/2023 & 29854 of 2024
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has placed a matter regarding the interpretation of Rule 12(10) of the Central Sale Tax (R&T) Rules before the Chief Justice for reference to a Full Bench.
The question that arose before the coordinate bench was whether akin to Form C (Form of Declaration) and F (Form of declaration to be issued by the transferee); Form H (Certificate of Export that relieves from payment of VAT/CST) can also be filed after the sales tax assessment proceedings have been completed.
Case title: M/s. The Cotton Corporation Of India v. Assistant Commissioner St Auditfac and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO: 1463/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the time permit set out under 73(2) of the AP GST Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature.
A division bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. added that any violation of that time period cannot be condoned and would render the show cause notice otiose.
Case title: Chakkas Enterprises vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes and Others
Case no.: W.P.NO: 30501/2023 & W.P.No. 16819/2024
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that pleadings relating to suppression of material facts, in an assessment order are the sine qua non for invoking section 21(5); by way of which limitation for filing an assessment order is extended to 6 years from 4 years.
"There is nowhere any mention of suppression of facts, much less, wilful suppression of facts, resulting in wilful evasion of tax, which is the sine qua non, for invoking Section 21(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act would not be applicable and the period of limitation would be four years, as set out under Section 21(4) of the Act," held Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath N.
Case Title: Tirumala Balaji Marbles And Granites v. The Assistant Commissioner St and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1200/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that GST registration can't be refused merely because the assessee belongs to another State.
“Though the apprehension of the respondents may not be misplaced, it would not mean that registration can be refused on a ground, which is not available under the Statute or the Rules. There do not appear to be any restriction for persons outside the State to come into the State of Andhra Pradesh and seek registration under the APGST Act,” stated the Division Bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N.
Delay Of Two Days In Issuing GST Notice Can't Be Condoned: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s The Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC)
Case Number: W.P.No.1463 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that delay of two days in issuing the GST notice cannot be condoned.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that “the time permit set out under 73(2) of the Act is mandatory and any violation of that time period cannot be condoned, and would render the show cause notice otiose.”
Case Title: Sri Durga Granites v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number: W.P.Nos.3480 & 6504 of 2020
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that a notice under Rule 142(1)(A) of CGST Rules must be issued before issuing proper show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao was addressing a case where notice under Rule-142(1)(A) of the CGST Rules was not issued to the assessees/petitioners, prior to the Orders of assessment.
Case Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos:16500, 16548 & 18862 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of document identification number doesn't render assessment orders void.
The bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam were addressing the issue where the assessee/petitioner has challenged the assessment orders passed against him. The main ground for challenge is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.
Case Title: Indubaala Enterprises LLP v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Case No: W.P. Nos. 31323, 31324 & 31330 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stands deemed withdrawn once the registered dealer files the pending returns along with payment of tax and applicable late fee, even if such returns are filed beyond the initially prescribed period.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the assessee, Indubaala Enterprises LLP, assailing multiple assessment orders on the ground of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.
Case Title: M/s Ushabala Chits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.14745 of 2021
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that interest and penalty collected by chit fund companies from defaulting subscribers for delayed payment of instalments are not taxable under GST.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether the interest/penalty collected for the delay in payment of the monthly subscription by the members forms a supply under GST.
Case Title: M/s Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos.6319 & 6321 & 5089 of 2010
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Value Added Tax (VAT) under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (AP VAT) cannot be levied on sales beyond 12 nautical miles, as such transactions fall outside the State's territorial jurisdiction.
Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar stated that neither the State Legislature nor the Central Legislature would have the power to levy tax on the sale of goods made beyond the territorial waters of India.
Bombay HC
Case Title: M/s. Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
If the donuts and other bakery items classified under restaurant services they would be taxed at 5% and if they classified under bakery product, they would be subjected to tax upto 18%.
Case Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit account” would not be governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
Case Title: Purple Products Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions.
The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act cannot be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned.
Case Title: Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.15228 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court stated that design and engineering services to foreign entities are zero-rated supplies; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST.
The Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that assessee is not an agency of the foreign recipient and both are independent and distinct persons. Thus, condition (v) of Section 2(6) is fully satisfied in the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated supplies in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the same shall be granted to them along with statutory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 1994
The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”
Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.
“Where such notice is served on a person, he can prove to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the notice that the money demanded or any part thereof was not due to the person in default or that he did not hold any money for or on account of the person in default at the time the notice was served on him nor is the money demanded or any part thereof, likely to become due to the said person or be held for or on account of such person” opined the bench.
GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15536 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12528 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”
Case Title: Umicore Autocat India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 463 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the GST Council and GST Network to develop a mechanism for cross-state ITC transfer in Mergers/amalgamations.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta permitted the IGST and CGST amount lying in the electronic credit ledger of the Transferor Company to be transferred to the Petitioner Company by physical mode for the time being, subject to the adjustments to be made in future.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Case Number: SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed.
“HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process).
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff and anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.4670 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel.
Justice S.M. Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending."
Case Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement.
The bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.
Case Title: Hikal Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause.
The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.
Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10708 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that re-testing of seized goods is a trade facilitation measure, not to be denied in the ordinary course.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-show cause notice consultation is not an empty formality; mandatory before the show cause notice (SCN) in demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. The question before Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was whether a pre-consultation notice would be mandatory before issuing show cause notices where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The bench opined that ….The requirement of a pre-consultative process cannot be dismissed as some empty formality. The master circular and the Circular of 19 November 2020 style this requirement as mandatory in cases where the tax demand exceeds Rs 50 lakhs, unless, of course, the case falls in any of the exceptions. Such circulars bind the Department…
Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra
Case no.: Writ Petition 11135 of 2025
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.
Case Title: West India Continental Oils Fats Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3000 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay Rs. 71.31. Lakh interest on refund of illegal IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) collected under RCM (Reverse Charge Mechanism) on ocean freight.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that admittedly, the Petitioner had paid the amount of IGST which the respondents utilized up to the date of grant of refund. Having utilized such amounts of the Petitioner there is no justification, legal or otherwise to deny interest to the Petitioner. To deprive the Petitioner of interest, in the given facts, would run contrary to the well-recognised legal principle of restitution which also finds statutory force under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Shri. Indu Shekhar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.5253 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has granted a stay on the Notification issued by the DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade) seeking to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”. Subsequently, on 15th October, 2025, the DGFT, having realised the mistake, issued a fresh Notification rectifying the same.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar were addressing a petition seeking a declaration that Notification No.02/2025-26 dated 2nd April 2025, issued by DGFT to alter the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, is ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 09 OF 2011
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that manufacturers cannot claim full sales tax set-off on furnace oil used in producing goods that are partly sold within Maharashtra and partly transferred to branches outside the state, ruling that a 6% reduction must apply under Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, on applicability of Rule 41D of the Sales Tax Act to furnace oil, endorses the view of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Pudumjee Pulp to state that “the logical corollary would be to apply the provisions of Rule 41D(3)(a) of the Sales Tax Rules as it stands, without reading it down, on the purchase of furnace oil in proportion to the finished goods despatched to the branches of Borosil.”
CASE NUMBER: WRIT PETITION NO. 6467 OF 2025
CASE TITLED:M/S SUMAN S. CONSTRUCTION VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
On November 14th, 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Suman Construction (“assessee” hereinafter), a government-registered civil contractor, which had challenged the service tax demand raised on road construction works for government departments.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the assessee could invoke a rectification application under Section 74 of the Finance Act to claim service-tax exemption for such government road projects, instead of filing a statutory appeal against the Order.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor P. Limited v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 3587 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that a rebate under Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be denied without determining the tax liability on exported goods, and has remanded Yamaha's rebate claim to the principal commissioner for fresh consideration.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna were examining whether the India Yamaha Motor P. Limited was entitled to a rebate under Rule 18 CER 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6 September 2024 in respect of the finished products upon which BED and NCCD was paid by the Yamaha (initially by utilising CENVAT credit, and later in cash), in so far as such payments concern the export of the finished products outside the India.
CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice
Case Titled: Octantis Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6043 Of 2023
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order
The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Titled: Sukraft Recycling Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 540 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the Department to refund the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Compensation Cess to the assessee observing that a manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit(ITC) of Compensation Cess, as Section 16(3)(b) of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must apply to both the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Compensation Cess.
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P.Mehta stated that we find the justification offered to refuse the benefit to the Petitioner, to be completely lacking logic. and we say so, since we find that the two components, i.e. the component of input tax credit availed under CGST/IGST are different from that by way of compensation cess. Worth to note that the mechanism prescribed under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, in order to claim refund for making zero rated supply, is restricted to the CGST and IGST and this is evident from the definition of the term, 'input tax credit' under the CGST Act, as it do not include the compensation cess.
Case Title: M/s Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012
The Bombay High Court has held that the assignment of the well-known trademark “Crocin” by Duphar Interfran Ltd. to SKB Plc (UK) amounted to a sale “in the course of export” of intangible goods, and therefore could not be taxed as a local sale within the State of Maharashtra under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a Sales Tax Reference overturned the view of the Sales Tax Tribunal and held that the situs of an intangible property follows the situs of its owner (mobilia sequuntur personam) and thus, the assignment of the trademark amounted to export, attracting the bar under Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr.
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11118 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that an importer cannot be made liable to pay customs duty on goods that were never cleared for home consumption and were never received by the importer. The Court observed that, under Sections 13, 23 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, duty paid in anticipation of clearance becomes refundable once it is established that the goods were short-landed or lost before clearance.
A division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a petition filed by M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. challenging the rejection of its refund claim for ₹35,37,358/–, paid as customs duty for 100 metric tons of PVC Resin imported under a Bill of Entry dated 27 April 2022. The petitioner had paid the full duty but never received the consignment.
Case Title: Evershine Enterprises Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3138 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Designated Committee under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is mandatorily required to verify and consider pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigation under Form SVLDRS-3 (final statement issued by the Designated Committee showing the exact amount payable by the taxpayer under the Scheme)
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna, while hearing a writ petition filed by the assessee, quashed the SVLDRS-3 demand statement from the assessee without adjusting tax already recovered and pre-deposits made. The Court stated that mere non-availability of challans cannot be a ground to disregard material produced within the permissible timeline. The Court observed that issuing SVLDRS-3 without such verification is contrary to Section 124(2) of the Finance Act, 2019, which mandates adjustment of past payments.
Case Title: Imran Humanyun Chandiwala Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case no.: Writ Petition: 12921 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot override or ignore the findings of the Customs Settlement Commission while taking administrative action. The Court ruled that once the Commission accepts the disclosure, settles duty liability and grants immunity under Section 127H of the Customs Act, its order becomes final and conclusive under Section 127J, and no other authority can indirectly reopen the customs issue.
A bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar while hearing the writ petition preferred by the purchaser, restored the registration of a Nissan petrol car purchased by Mumbai businessman, whose registration had been cancelled by the RTO on the ground that the vehicle was originally imported using forged customs documents.
Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3587 of 2022
The Bombay High Court has set aside the Union Government's order denying India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. a rebate of ₹3.26 crore towards National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) paid on exported motorcycles, holding that the authority failed to examine the core statutory requirements under the Central Excise Rules.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna remanded the matter to the Central Government (Revisionary Authority) to reconsider Yamaha's claim afresh and pass a reasoned order within six months.
Case Title: M/s Unique Enterprises Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2343 of 2021
The Bombay High Court has set aside the SVLDRS-3 Form issued to M/s Unique Enterprises, holding that the case should have been assessed under the “Litigation” category of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, and not under the “Arrears” category. The Court ruled that the duty demand in the case had not attained finality, and therefore the assessee was entitled to 70% relief under Section 124(1)(a) of the Scheme.
A Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna while hearing a writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside of form SVLDS-3 issued to the assessee under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, stated that the Petitioner's case would fall under the ambit of Section 124(1)(a) of the Finance Act, and Petitioner would be legally entitled to relief to the extent of 70% of the tax dues/duty demand.
Nescafé Premix Is 'Instant Coffee', Attracts Lower Sales Tax Rate: Bombay High Court
Case Name: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra vs. Nestle India
Case No. : Sales Tax Reference NO. 24 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court in a matter concerning classification of Nescafé Premix and if it was exigible to sales tax at the rate of 8% or 16%, has held that a premix resulting in 'Coffee and Instant drinks' would be classifiable as such, attracting lower rate of tax. (8% not 16%).
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna re-iterated the cardinal principle of taxation in the context of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 that specific entries in a tax schedule should prevail over general entries. On the classification of Nescafé Premix under by applying the common parlance test the High Court ruled that Nescafé Premix marketed, traded as such had created a consumer perception of 'Instant coffee'.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs. Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur
Case No: Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 2010 in Reference Application No. 68 of 2004
In a significant ruling on product classification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Bombay High Court has held that canned pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” for the purpose of Entry A-23 of the Schedule to the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna answered the sales tax reference in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee Sudha Instant Soft Drinks & Essences, Nagpur, thereby overturning the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's view.
Revenue Cannot Adjudicate Decade-Old SCNs On NPV Sales Tax Retention: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Computer Graphics Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Nos.: Writ Petition Nos. 2052 & 2054 of 2025 (F)
The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside two show cause notices issued to a manufacturer seeking to levy central excise duty on the differential amount of sales tax/VAT retained by it under a Net Present Value (NPV) incentive scheme, holding that the Revenue cannot be permitted to adjudicate stale notices after an unexplained and inordinate delay.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan allowed the writ petitions filed by the assessee, quashing show cause notices, which were sought to be adjudicated after a lapse of nearly nine and eight years, respectively. The Bench stated that in any case, as we find that the determination of the show cause notices shall defeat its purpose, on account of lapse of time as it will pose difficulty for the Revenue as well as the Assessee to track the necessary material, which will be necessary for effective adjudication and hence, according to us, the show cause notices cannot be adjudicated and are liable to be quashed and set aside only on the ground of gross delay in not adjudicating them, despite lapse of period of 9 and 8 years respectively.
GST Abolished Ad Tax, Doesn't Bar Municipal Licence Fees on Hoardings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. And connected matters
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10684 of 2018
The Bombay High Court recently held that the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime does not take away the power of municipal corporations in Maharshtra to levy licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs. The court clarified that GST abolished only advertisement tax and not regulatory charges imposed under municipal law.
A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna, made the observation while dismissing a large batch of petitions filed by outdoor advertising agencies, challenging the levy of licence fees on hoardings and sky-signs by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Notices Issued Against Mumbai Company After SVLDRS Settlement
Case Title: Astute Valuers and Consultanta Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 74 of 2023
The Bombay High Court has held that once a dispute is settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and a Discharge Certificate is issued, tax authorities cannot reopen the matter.
A Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Advait M Sethna set aside two show cause notices issued by officers of the Central GST Audit-II wing, Mumbai, after the dispute was settled under the Scheme.
Case Name: Commissioner of Central GST vs. Dish TV India Limited (Formerly known as Videocon D2H Ltd.)
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Mumbai Tribunal's decision allowing Dish TV to retain CENVAT Credit on imported smart cards, which were used for testing and pairing with Set Top Boxes.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar dismissed the appeal filed by the Service Tax Department against order by the Mumbai, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that after verifying accounting records held in favour of Dish TV.
Case Title: United Spirits Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of State Tax-II & Appellate Authority, South Goa & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 229 of 2025
The Bombay High Court at Goa has dismissed a writ petition filed by United Spirits Ltd. challenging the levy of interest on delayed payment of VAT on sales of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), Rectified Spirit (RS) and High Bouquet Spirit (HBS) for the financial year 2019–20.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S. Chavan held that interest under Section 25(4) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is compensatory in nature and becomes automatically payable once tax is not deposited within the prescribed time, irrespective of any claimed ambiguity on taxability.
Calcutta HC
Service Tax Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Implementation Of Govt Projects: Calcutta High Court
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Kolkata Vs M/S Electrosteel Castings Limited
Case no.: CEXA/56/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that construction of canals/ pipelines/ conduits to support irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to the Government, cannot be exigible to service tax.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya relied on two Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to observe, “Even in case of works contract, if the nature of the activities is such that they are excluded from the purview of commercial or industrial construction services, or erection, commissioning or installation services, then they would generally remain excluded from this taxable service as well. These circulars are sufficient indication to hold that when the Government projects are being implemented, the service tax liability cannot be fastened.”
Case Title: Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: FMA 136 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that customs department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy.
Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/9/2020
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.
The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.
Case Title: THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
Case Number: APO/248/2016 WITH WPO/2662/1996 IA NO: GA/2/2021
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda has held that without framing Regulations or without the budget estimate prescribing the rates at which advertisement tax may be levied by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), computation and imposition of such tax would be arbitrary. It would have no rational basis. It would then be open to KMC to quantify such tax as per its sweet will, which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law.
Case title: Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Taltala Charge, WBGST & Ors.
Case no.: WPA 3033 OF 2025
Calcutta High Court recently directed the proper officer under the GST Act to consider ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his personal bank account, as his business was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by a direction of the proper officer, though allowing the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- but, directing the amount to be paid to the bank account of the business— Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/10/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”
Case Detail: Bidyut Autotech Private Limited and another v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ)
The Calcutta High Court in a matter concerning non-disclosure of Cess in monthly return GSTR-3B which came to be rectified by filing annual return in GSTR-09, has set aside appellate order. The High Court has directed the Authority to revisit the matter and consider subsequent rectification in GSTR-09 of initial error of non-disclosure.
In an order dated November 26, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that at the time of finalization of the books of account, Petitioners realized their mistake and disclosed the entire amount of CESS in the annual report filed in form GSTR-9. The Calcutta High Court emphasizing on effect of Form GSTR-9 observed that non-consideration of the aspect that Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Cess paid remained unavailed would contravene the Constitutional Principles. It was also stated that although Section 44(2) Amendment set a 3-year filing date for annual returns but same was without penalties or prohibition, therefore, late filing cannot be treated as barred.
Case Title: M/s. JJ Traders v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2144 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs) circulars are binding on departmental officers but cannot be used as a protective shield in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or invoices is in doubt.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that it cannot be doubted that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs would be binding on all its officers but at the same time there can also not be any cavil to the proposition that a circular issued by the Board whether instructive or clarificatory or otherwise has to operate within the statutory framework and has to be applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment and the transaction and the documents are in order.
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the GST authorities do not have the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act to seal or seize cash. Accordingly, the bench directed the immediate de-sealing of Rs. 24 lakhs.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined whether the GST authorities have the power to seize cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner SGST, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2192 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit.
Case Title: Shree Shyam Steel Co. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: CEXA 60 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court held that the law of limitation is not meant to extinguish substantive rights and must be applied with a liberal approach where delay is caused by bona fide conduct.
The bench condoned the delay of 2262 days in filing the CESTAT appeal, holding that the assessee's bona fide pursuit of settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was a valid ground and that condonation of delay could not be denied on such a basis.
GST | Stereo System In E-Rickshaw An Input, Calcutta High Court Grants Refund To Manufacturer
Case Name: Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court, in a matter concerning admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchase of 'stereo system' to be used in E-rickshaw, has granted Refund claim of Unutilized Input Tax Credit under inverted duty structure amounting to approximately ₹8 lakhs.
The Calcutta High Court was called-upon to decide whether "Stereo System" was an input/ raw material in manufacturing of E-rickshaw covered by HSN-87031090. Also, whether ITC involved in purchase of "stereo system" would be eligible for refund vide clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 54 (3) of the WBGST/CGST Act.
GST | Calcutta High Court Quashes Excess ITC Demand Pertaining To Initial Years Of GST Rollout
Case Name: Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing appeal against Section 73 demand, preliminary, “without appreciating the worth of the documents”.
Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that there was 'total non-consideration of material on record' upon tracing through the paper book as well as relevant documents annexed to the writ petition which were also placed on record before the Appellate Authority (AA).
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur Commissionerate v. M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited
Case Number: CEXA 31 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court held that statutory interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is not leviable where the entire transaction is revenue-neutral and the duty paid is available as Cenvat Credit to downstream units, causing no loss to the exchequer.
Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar stated that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the situation is revenue-neutral, inasmuch as the duty paid by the assessee was available as Cenvat credit to its downstream units and there is no net loss of revenue to the exchequer.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case title: Deepak Agrawal & Ors. v. Property Tax Assessment Officer & Ors.
Case no.: WPT No. 159 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that it cannot exercise writ jurisdiction against an order by the District Judge, which is the Appellate Authority under the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, upholding imposition of property tax.
In doing so, single judge Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas cited Section 149 of the Act which prescribes that the Appellate Authority is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
ITC Not Available On Cess For Electricity Supplied To Residential Township: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WPT No. 14 of 2021
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that input tax credit is not available on cess for electricity supplied to residential township.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal stated that the electricity generated is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer(assessee), hence, the assessee would not be entitled for ITC to electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township.
Case Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 1235 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.
The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.
Case Name: Tata Steel Limited (formerly Tata Steel BSL Limited) vs. UOI
Case No.: WPA 20381 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disallowance of ₹165 crores of CENVAT credit on steel structures, parts, accessories, and cement as confirmed earlier by the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, on the issue of abatement of the appeals, dismissed the grounds of challenge relating to (i) abatement of appeals before the CESTAT, and (ii) the Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue after the Corporate Insolvency of the assessee's erstwhile entity, Tata Steel Bhushan Steel Limited. Citing Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Court held that the CESTAT had become functus officio.
Case Title: Multireach Media Private limited & Anr Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No: WPA No. 209333 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the GST regime is uploaded on the GST Portal only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the primary “View Notices and Orders” tab the resulting delay in filing appeal is to be condoned, considering that taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to check multiple tabs for final orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while hearing a writ petition filed under the WBGST/CGST Act, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits by condoning the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Title: Laxmi Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 20364 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B.
Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand.
Case Title: Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WA No. 736 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the ITC is not admissible on electricity supplied to a township maintained by Bharat Aluminium.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on the electricity supplied to the township maintained by Bharat Aluminium/appellant. This is because such supply cannot be said to have been made in the course or furtherance of the appellant's business, as contemplated under Sections 2(17) and 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Case Title: Deepak Pandey vs Commissioner Of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Case No.: TAXC No. 153 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that service tax deposited during the course of investigation cannot be denied refund merely on the ground of limitation under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, especially when the department itself later drops proceedings and acknowledges non-liability.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed a tax appeal filed by a service tax assessee challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to ₹14.89 Lakh.
Case Title: Deepak Pandey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax Division
Case No.: TAXC No. 153 of 2025
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has allowed a service tax appeal filed by an assessee, setting aside orders passed by the department and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which had rejected a refund claim as time-barred under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 .
A Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing an appeal challenging CESTAT's order that denied refund of ₹14.89 lakh deposited by the assessee during an ongoing service tax investigation.
Delhi HC
Case title: Chegg India Pvt Ltd v. UoI & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1062/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing certified copy of impugned order in an appeal preferred by Assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not render the appeal time-barred, if it was filed online within prescribed time. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned,
“the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory…where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. Ultimately, what is to be borne in mind is the fact that online filing was within limitation…In most Courts and Tribunals, online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing, which was complete in all respects, including electronic copy of the order, is not valid filing.”
Case title: Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11207/2023
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the Customs Authorities against keeping show-cause notices pending in call-book only to take them up after several years, leaving the assessee in lurch.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed that in the absence of any “glaring impossibility”, such an approach of the authorities would not be permissible. In the case at hand, Petitioner challenged the delay of almost eight years in adjudication of the show-cause notice issued to it in 2015.
Case title: M/S G.S Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Tax And Gst, Delhi (West)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13149/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 107(2), sit in appeal over an order passed by the Appellate Authority.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma ruled, “The Commissioner, while seeking to review an order passed under the Act and in purported exercise of powers vested by Section 107(2), cannot possibly sit over and above an order passed by the appellate authority.”
Case title: Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7510/2024
The Delhi High Court recently called upon the Customs Department to make use of Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers it to serve notices through email. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma said such an approach will prevent delay and non-appearances, leading to expeditious disposal of matters.
“In the opinion of this Court, the provision itself makes it clear that notices can be sent by email…The Customs Department ought to in future follow a system by which in addition to notices by speed post, registered post or courier, notices are also sent on the email address which is provided on the letterhead of the Petitioner or any authorised person. This would avoid substantial delay and matters proceeding ex-parte as has happened in the present case,” it said.
Case title: Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 149/2025
Based on a circular issued by the Finance Ministry, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Customs Department cannot encash the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, whose import/export transactions are in dispute, if the latter has made a pre-deposit with his appeal against the demand and penalty.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of the Circular and the clauses extracted above would show that no coercive measures can be taken against the Appellant during the period when the limitation for filing of the appeal has not expired. In addition, if the pre-deposit has already been made the remaining amount cannot be recovered by encashment of the bank guarantee.”
Case title: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10680/2024 and connected matters
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that amounts received by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions under the heads of filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee are not exigible to tax.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma thus allowed the petitions filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission against the show cause notices issued to them by the GST Department. It observed, “We find ourselves unable to accept, affirm or even fathom the conclusion that regulation of tariff, inter-State transmission of electricity or the issuance of license would be liable to be construed as activities undertaken or functions discharged in the furtherance of business.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Delhi High Court has urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers, including people from Indian Origin such as the OCI Cardholders, PIOs etc., could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits.
Case title: Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12142/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods while in transit cannot be invoked for imposing penalties for minor breaches, like incomplete e-way bill.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that Section 129 cannot, merely by virtue of its non-obstante clause, be construed to have an overriding effect on Section 126 which interdicts tax officers from imposing any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements.
Case title: Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: CUSAA 38/2023
Coming to the rescue of an IT distribution company, the Delhi High Court has held that the import of Wireless Access Points (WAPs), which operate on MIMO technology, are exempt from Customs duty.
In doing so, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the word “and” used between 'MIMO and LTE Products', which are eligible for exemption under the relevant notification issued by the Centre, is disjunctive.
Case title: KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10505/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 is in the nature of a 'settlement' and cannot be accepted by a trader only in part.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Given the nature of the order passed under Section 127C of the Act – which is in the nature of a settlement – it would not be permissible to dissect the same and accept that parts of the order which are favourable to the applicant while rejecting the other directions which are not. The order of Settlement Commission must be accepted in entirety.”
Case title: Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5809/2024
The Delhi High Court has set aside a final order of penalty passed by the Customs Department against a paper trader for alleged undervaluation of imported goods, stating that the same was passed during pendency of challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the trader.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “passing of the impugned Order-in-Original while the impugned SCN was under challenge before this Court would amount to initiation of parallel proceedings rendering the scrutiny of the Court as infructuous.”
Case title: M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6218/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a court of law directs the Customs Department to release the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, the Department cannot turn around and say that the amount will be adjusted towards the final demand order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “the Division Bench judgment had to be complied with and the Customs Department could not hold back compliance thereof by directing adjustment in the final order. Such a course of action would not be permissible.”
Case title: Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10482/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign nationals coming to India need not declare to the Customs Department their gold jewellery which they are carrying for bonafide personal use.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma further held that the Customs Department must make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery', while seizing items for violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 9/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Case title: Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12489/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.
Case title: Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements. Section 138(B) of the Customs Act of 1962 deals with the admissibility of statements made during customs proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma relied on Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others (1983) where a Coordinate bench of the High Court observed that if any information is received from a statutory authority and an adjudicating process is initiated, there is nothing in law which compels the information provider to be involved in the judicial proceedings or warrant him/her for cross examination.
Case title: M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14279/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “The facility to seek condonation can be resorted provided the legislation does not construct an independent regime with respect to an appeal being preferred. Once it is found that the legislation incorporates a provision which creates a special period of limitation and proscribes the same being entertained after a terminal date, the general provisions of the Limitation Act would cease to apply.”
Case title: Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15973/2024
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.
The Department on the other hand contended that an oral SCN was given to the Petitioner, who also signed an undertaking that he does not want a written SCN or even a personal hearing. The High Court observed that such signing of a standard form of waiver by the Petitioner would not be in compliance with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the waiver under Section 124 has to be “conscious” and “informed”.
Case title: M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9461/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that merely unlocking/ activating a new mobile phone by disabling the “regional lock” which is put by original equipment manufacturers to restrict usage to a specific geographical location, does not make the mobile phone a “used” good.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus held that exporters of such mobile phones will also be eligible to claim duty drawbacks.
Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1807/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.
Case title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma
Case no.: SERTA 3/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated.
The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.
Case title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2030/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.
Case title: Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4644/2021
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a trader whose application for availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 over service tax dues was declined by the GST Department “without providing any reason”.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed that in the absence of proof of service of notice upon the trader, prior to his making an application for dispute resolution, it cannot be presumed that any investigation was pending against him.
Case title: MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2049/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.
While holding so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the release of a Russian national's gold chain, valued at about Rs. 7 lakhs, which was confiscated by the Customs Department when he arrived in India.
Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 934/2023
In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.”
Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1142/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.
Considering that the matter would involve factual evaluation of the manner in which services are provided and charged by the company, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta relegated it to the Tribunal.
Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 877/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT, stating that since the deposit was in a wrong account, credit cannot be given.
Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 868/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD. Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27 would show that the same deals with refund of customs duty. It is abundantly clear that EDD is not in the nature of customs duty. The deposit of the EDD was itself to secure any customs duty which may have been later on found to be payable, due to the allegation of underdeclaration. However, when the said allegation has been disproved and the Department has taken a view that there was no under-declaration, the substratum of the deposit of EDD itself no longer exists.”
Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2690/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters. A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,
“It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”
Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7741/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that the period of seizure cannot be extended under Section 67)7) for a further six-month period without giving notice to the accused.
Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2608/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “in the absence of reasons having been assigned in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action.”
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “Based on the set of facts as they presented themselves, both parties are entitled to make contesting claims. However, a genuine disagreement, as in the present case, of the classification of the goods cannot possibly be elevated to 'suppression'.”
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.
Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices: One under Section 28(4) where elements of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression are made out in assessee' conduct. The other under Section 28(1) where the elements of Section 28(4) of the Act are absent. “Meaning thereby that it is only in those circumstances where Section 28(4) of the Act is not attracted that a Notice under Section 28(1) of the Act is issued,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3002/2025
The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed. Further, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, who sought the release of his jewelry, and no final order was served on him till date.
Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 114/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.
In the facts of the case, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN. Substantial loss would be caused to the Petitioner if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier.”
Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2784/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction after perusing a photograph, depicting that she used to wear the said pieces of jewelry since childhood. It observed, “This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same would not be liable to be confiscated.”
Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3042/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.
Traditionally, correspondence related to any violation of the Act is made via post. However, with advent of technology and to avoid delays, Court had in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by speed post, registered post or courier.
Case title: Mea Ame Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3200/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the extent of jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Customs Department under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have sought the authority's response on a private company's petition challenging seizure of its imported “empty atomizer devices” purportedly to be put to use for smoking de-addiction.
Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7295/2021
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.
Justice Sachin Datta cited Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) where the Delhi High Court had emphasized that matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities of penal consequences, cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2957/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.
Eligible passenger was defined by the Finance Ministry via a Notification dated June 30, 2017, to mean a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid Indian passport, coming to India after not less than six months of stay abroad. Baggage Rules allow duty-free clearance of certain items, including used household articles, professional equipment, and personal effects to eligible passengers.
Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 530/2025
The Delhi High Court recently took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
“This order reveals a complete comedy of error…The petition reveals an unfortunate situation wherein the CESTAT while intending to correct an error in its initial order…continued to make repeated errors resulting in the impugned order and the present challenge,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta remarked at the outset.
Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist
Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3347/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.
Petitioner had argued that the jewellery was a personal effect, as evident from engraving of his first name on the same, and was thus exempted from duty. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered that the jewellery be released within four weeks.
Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6235/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus held that the High Court's judgment in M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) is applicable to the said provision.
Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3431/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, "while the writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable at the stage of the disclosure statement, the Court would be hesitant and reluctant in exercising jurisdiction as determination of anti-dumping duty is a time bound process which is to be exercised by the designated authority."
Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2760/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with certain formalities, a further extension for a period of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice can be given in terms of Section 110(5).
Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11518/2024
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that such a practice will not only ensure that the Department does not lose the data due to the seized device getting outdated but it will also provide make the data readily accessible to the investigation officers.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited
Case no.: CEAC 3/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the CESTAT order which held that bonafide belief of the sub-contractor that he was not required to discharge service tax liability cannot be ruled out amid prevailing controversy.
Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3675/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.
The plea was rejected by CBIC through a “cryptic order” citing limitation despite its own Instruction clearing air on eligibility of drawbacks on clean energy cess, with retrospective benefit to pending cases, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted.
Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3711/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “This position is completely unacceptable to the Court…consignment cannot be held up in this manner…expedited steps are not taken for clearing of goods.”
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.
In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.
Case title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4004/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials.
“...if a complaint was received in this manner, the CCTV footage ought to be preserved immediately as the same is available only for 30 days. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the Petitioner at the time of departure could also have been preserved to determine whether the Petitioner was wearing a gold kada or not at the time of departure. Therefore, in such cases, immediate action ought to be taken when such a complaint is received,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.
Delhi VAT | No Interest On Refund For Period Of Delay Attributable To Dealer: High Court
Case title: Lithium Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Value Added Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4925/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that if the delay in granting refund to a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is attributable to the dealer itself, such period of delay shall be excluded for the purposes of awarding interest on refund. Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act stipulates a period of two months for refund of excess tax, penalty, etc., if the period for refund is a quarter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Explanation to Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act and observed, “If the delay in granting the refund is attributable to the said person (dealer), whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable.”
Case title: M/S Raj International v. Additional Commissioner Cgst Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4096/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rise in number of GST related cases being filed before it and to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, particularly those arising out of procedural issues, has asked the Department to depute at least two officials from its litigation section.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said these officials can coordinate with the various Commissionerates of the GST department and give instructions to the Department's counsels, in an expedited manner.
Case title: HVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 67 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4506/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an order rejecting the rectification application filed by an assessee cannot be passed without first hearing the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further said that the hearing can be dispensed with only where the rectification application is allowed.
Case title: Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Delhi West CGST Commissionerate & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3824/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes twin conditions for Revenue holding back Refund due to an Assesseee, despite an order to that effect.
Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.
Case title: M/S Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Gst, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it has no discretion to allow a prayer seeking waiver of pre-deposit condition prescribed under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for preferring an appeal under the statute. In terms of Section 107(6), insofar as the admitted tax, interest or penalty is concerned, the entire amount would have to be deposited. In so far as the disputed amount is concerned, 10% of the tax would have to be deposited as a pre-deposit along with the appeal.
The division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that Section 107(6) “ does not give discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit.”
Case title: Exide Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4822/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the Department.
Case title: Ms Stesalit Limited & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3138/2025
The Delhi High Court will soon decide the GST rate applicable to roof-mounted air conditioners of specific designs manufactured for the railways.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta are seized with a petition filed by railways and aerospace technology company StesaLIT Limited, challenging a Circular issued by the Union Finance Ministry in 2024, stipulating that above said AC units shall be classified under HSN 8415 (which attracts 28% GST) and not HSN 8607 (which attracts 18% GST).
Case title: M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) v. CGST Delhi North & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2178/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Adjudicating Authority under Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 to undertake fresh adjudication of the show cause notice issued to an assessee, raising demand of more than ₹10 crores.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta did so after noting that such a “substantial” demand was made without even considering the assessee's reply.
Case title: M/S Brijbihari Concast Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Director Sh. Rajeev Agarwal) v. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Meerurt Zonal Unit (Through Its Additional Director General) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8433/2024
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST authority not to prejudice the business of an assessee, involved in manufacturing of mild steel products, by attaching its complete bank account pending adjudication of ₹15.09 crores tax evasion proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that one year had elapsed since the provisional attachment order was passed but no show cause notice was issued.
Sikh People Usually Wear 'Kada', Personal Effect: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Detention By Customs
Case title: Dalvinder Singh Sudan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5136/2025
Observing that Sikh persons usually wear kada as part of their religious practice, the Delhi High Court set aside the detention of a Dubai resident's gold kada by the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Clearly, a perusal of the photographs and the fact that it is one Kada which is usually worn by persons like the Petitioner who are Sikhs, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the same was a personal effect of the Petitioner.”
Case title: Haris Aslam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4962/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot sit over an appellate body's order directing it to release the goods of an assessee, merely on the ground that the Department seeks to prefer a revision against such order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has also allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay which has been granted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).” Also Read - Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Over Cash Deposits During Demonetisation, Says Order U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Transgressed Notice U/S 148A(b)
Case title: Bhavna Luthra L/H Of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor Of M/S. Hunny Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, Range 8, CGST, Delhi & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4551/2025
The Delhi High Court recently recorded the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the GST Department. The GST registration of the firm owned by her now deceased husband was cancelled in view of his death. However, his widow sought a refund of ₹10,45,793/- balance in the electronic cash ledger of the firm. The said application was rejected by the Department and subsequently, the amount was debited from the Ledger without either being paid to the petitioner or being re-credited in the Ledger.
“It is a matter of concern that almost a year ago, the same Petitioner had appeared before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which, after considering the matter, directed that the refund amount be re-credited within a period of two weeks. It is unfortunate to see that despite the said amount being in the Electronic cash ledger, the refund has not been given to the Petitioner till date,” Court said.
Case title: M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4576/2025
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from being prejudiced due to non-providing of cross examination. Therefore, such reasoning presumes/implies the existence of prejudice. In other words, if the alleging party fails to prove any substantial prejudice caused to it due to such non-provision, it shall not have the inherent right to set aside such an order/judgment.”
Case title: Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4496/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters. The said duty drawbacks are claimed under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however noted that the Scheme has become the subject of misuse by some traders/ exporters who make fraudulent exports merely with a view of availing the benefits under the scheme.
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5304/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it. The decision is a contrast to a coordinate bench decision rendered in July last year, holding that uploading of notices under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, Also Read - Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore “the notice if uploaded on the additional notices tab of the portal, the same would not be proper in as much as the party would not have even acquired knowledge of the same.”
Case title: Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5669/2014
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju relied on Santanu Ray vs. Union of India where the Supreme Court discussed vicarious liability of directors.
Case title: M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4774/2025
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Noida based firm allegedly involved in GST fraud of over Rs. 550 crores. In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were unappreciative of the Petitioner's conduct in responding to the Department's proceedings.
The High Court said, “A perusal of the reply filed by the Petitioner, would show that the Petitioners all along had all the requisite information to reply to the SCN, however, it chose not to file the same for almost six months. It was only when the personal hearing notice was given, due to the imminent expiry of the limitation period for passing the order, that the Petitioners have chosen to file a reply. The Petitioner only then raised objections in respect of RUDs and non-grant of opportunity for cross-examination. The Petitioners have, clearly, not been diligent in this matter.”
Rule 86A CGST Rules | Credit Ledger Can't Be Blocked For More Than One Year : Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5438/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered unblocking of an enterprise's Electronic Credit Ledger following the lapse of one year since its initial blocking.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which lays down the conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger. It prescribes that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year.
Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5300/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Goods and Services Tax authorities are expected to empathetically consider an assessee's request for adjournment of personal hearing on medical grounds. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.
The development comes in a petition filed by an optical firm, claiming that impugned order raising demand of approximately Rs.1.5 crores was passed by the Delhi GSt Department despite requesting for an adjournment of personal hearing on the ground that its proprietor suffered from a brain stroke and was not in a position for a hearing.
Case title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5083/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus differed from the Bombay High Court's decision in Amit Manilal Haria V. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors. (2025) which held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against an employee as he is not a 'taxable' person.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”
Case title: M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6006/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further observed, “This Court also takes note, with some consternation, that such large scale fraudulent availment of ITC without actual passing of goods or services may, if left unchecked, can lead to severe damage to the GST framework itself, which is meant to encourage legally entitled persons and businesses to avail of ITC and other similar facilities such as drawbacks etc.”
Case title: Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5737/2025
The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that while the provision is meant to enable ease of doing business, it has been coming across many cases where this facility under Section 16 of the CGST Act has been misused by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent.
Case title: SDMC v. Moon Steeland General Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9986/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of an 'Industrial Building' cannot be restricted merely to traditional notions of manufacturing involving tangible and physical goods.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav rather held that an 'Industrial Building' encompasses IT sector businesses where non-material inputs such as data, digital content, or intellectual capital are subjected to systematic transformation or reconstitution into new intellectual property outputs, such as software, algorithms, digital products, or proprietary databases.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5901/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8028/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5684/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “A perusal of Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would show that the said provision merely contemplates that the maximum adjournments shall be given for three times but does not in effect mean that three hearings have to be given.”
Case title: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5878/2025
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a demand order passed by the GST Department without hearing the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the show cause notice or attending the personal hearing despite notice.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Considering the fact that (i) The Department has given the show cause notice and the personal hearing notices to the Petitioner; (ii) The Petitioner has not been diligent; the Department cannot be held to blame for not giving a proper hearing.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Case no.: SERTA 5/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that such an appeal, even on a limited point of limitation, will not lie before the High Court under Section 35G.
It observed, “Even if the question of limitation has been raised, the Court has to go into the merits of the matter after a decision on the question of limitation is made. The maintainability of the appeal would have to be examined on the said benchmark…The obvious conclusion would be that if this Court holds that the SCN was within the limitation, the issue of taxability would have to be gone into.”
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8788/2025
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.
Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9269/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: CUSAA 66/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus dismissed the Department's appeal against Nokia. Nokia sought refund of excess duty paid on import of mobile handsets. While the goods were exempted by the Central government vide a notification issued in March 2015, Nokia said it had paid additional duty of customs at the rate of 6%.
Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9061/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus interdicted the bank from attaching the account of an assessee, who had preferred an appeal against demand. It observed, “A perusal of Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the judgments relied on, would show that once an appeal is filed and pre-deposit is made, there is automatic stay of the impugned order. In view thereof, the attachment of the bank account is not sustainable.”
Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9141/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.
Section 122 contemplates penalties for certain offences under the GST Act, including fraudulent availment of input tax credit. Section 122(1A) was introduced by the Finance Act 2020 and came into effect on 1 January 2021. It prescribes that any person who retains the benefit of wrongfully availed ITC, etc. and at whose instance such a transaction is conducted, shall be liable to penalty.
Case title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the GST Department for harassing a tax lawyer, by raiding his offices and seizing his files and electronic gadgets, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that unless the Department has some material to indicate the lawyer's involvement in alleged tax evasion, it cannot take such steps against him.
Case title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4853/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.”
GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court
Case title: Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6768/2023
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled. In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.
In this backdrop a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “When the GST registration itself has been cancelled in 2018, obviously, no refund can be granted till the said GST registration of the Petitioner is restored.”
Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4781/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “While the purpose behind Section 73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by which an adjudication order has to be issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is to ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner…the expression 'three months' has to be reckoned and interpreted as three calendar months and not as 90 days.”
Case title: Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10392/2025
The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.
Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”
Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11906/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.
Though the trader sought to contend that reply could not be filed as he is not a frequent visitor to the GST portal, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said, “It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal. The Petitioner was well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him and such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever.”
Case title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025
The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.
Case title: M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2024
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over alleged import of counterfeit iPhones, stating that such imports not only affect brand owners but also adversely affect consumer welfare— as old and used products could get re-branded as new ones.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed, “Consumers in India may be made to pay more for used, second hand or counterfeit products under the impression that they are original branded products. Such imports also have an impact on the brand equity and goodwill of the original manufacturers in India.”
Case title: Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11626/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.
Stating that this approach reflects a “complete non-application of the mind”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain directed the Department to adjudicate both the issues afresh.
Case title: Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11815/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed that refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the two conditions – "(i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue."
Case title: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12487/2025
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a Muslim woman whose gold bangles were seized by the Customs Department on return from Mecca and were withheld despite an order of the Adjudicating Authority, directing release.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that merely because the Department plans to seek a review of the order for return, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, is not grounds to withhold the return of seized articles.
Case title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9139/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown. In the opinion of this Court, under such circumstances where the allegation of the Petitioner is that there is an impersonation of the Petitioner's credentials, the matter ought to be investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.”
Case title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12907/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that considering the prevailing policy in India to encourage start-ups and MSMEs, the Customs Department also needs to be sensitized to ensure that such parties are given some consideration, especially, when the goods are not prohibited goods.
Case title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13229/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “non-appearance for appraisement does not stop the limitation for the issuance of the SCN in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.”
Case title: Uday Jain & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo And Import & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13092/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the artwork of Padma Bhushan awardee Late BC Sanyal, seized amid a dispute surrounding its valuation.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed there is no conclusive proof that the artwork was made in Pakistan, as claimed by the Department. “The bill of entry itself reveals that the import is being effected from Dubai,” it observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) v. M/S Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd
Case no.: CUSAA 111/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker must diligently perform its responsibilities under the 2018 Licensing Regulations however, any failure thereof must be met with a proportionate punishment.
While dealing with a case where the broker's license was suspended due to alleged failure to oversee warehousing of goods meant for re-export, leading to their sale in the domestic market, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “There is no doubt that Customs Brokers do have significant responsibility under the CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations) 2018 which ought to be performed with diligence and commitment. The fact that the Respondent did not oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear infraction.”
Case title: M/S Tecmax Electronics v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 121/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of pre-deposit for preferring an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is mandatory and the forum has no power to admit any appeal without the same.
However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further added that the High Court may, in rare circumstances, waive off the said deposit. It observed, “CESTAT does not have the power to admit appeal without the pre-deposit, however, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may waive the same in rare circumstances, on a case to case basis.”
Case title: Sonaram Bagadaram Mali v. The Commissioner Of Custom & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13649/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that misleading consumers about locally manufactured goods by labelling them as 'Made in China' or in some other foreign country is contrary to public interest.
The bench was dealing with a Customs case whereby Petitioner's goods (mobile tempered glass) bearing 'Made in China' mark were seized by the Department in a raid.
Delhi High Court Directs Customs Department To Set Up Passenger Grievance Counters At Delhi Airport
Case title: Imran v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10651/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Customs at the IGI Airport to create some counters of the Department outside the airport's security zone, for easy access of aggrieved passengers.
The direction was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain after the Petitioner, a resident of Kuwait whose gold cut piece was seized by the Department, complained that since the counters of the Customs Department are in the secured area, it is not easy to access them for making representations.
Case title: Mushlina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14324/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the Customs Department's regular non-appearance in an appeal preferred by an aggrieved traveller whose articles were confiscated at the airport. The passenger further faced consistent non-implementation of the relief orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The court also allowed the release of the articles while upholding the order of the appellate authority.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further noted that in cases where the Department prefers revision against the appellate order, like in this case, it does not keep the traveller in the loop, making them wait endlessly.
Case Title: Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13821/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued directions safeguarding the right to privacy in GST search proceedings, stating that any family-related CCTV footage which violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner.
“Some of the concerns which are raised by the Petitioners such as right to privacy of the family being violated, etc., deserve to be addressed. Clearly, any family-related CCTV footage which is with the GST department and violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner,” stated the bench consists of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
One Rolex Watch Can Be For Personal Use, Not 'Commercial Quantity': Delhi High Court To Customs
Case title: Mahesh Malkani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14402/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that one Rolex watch seized by the Customs Department from an air passenger cannot be called 'commercial quantity'. It thus cautioned the Department's Adjudicating Authority against “error” on its part, in declaring the same as commercial.
“Clearly, this Court is of the view that one Rolex watch cannot be held to be a commercial quantity and there is no reason as to why the same cannot be kept for personal use,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Union of India v. Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14723/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to hear challenges to notifications issued by the Central Government, imposing Anti-Dumping Duty.
Prior to Finance Act 2023, Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which is the governing provision for appeals before CESTAT, conferred jurisdiction on CESTAT to hear appeals against 'order'. However, post amendment vide Section 134 of Finance Act, the power is circumscribed to appeals against 'determination or review'. Hence, the question before the High Court is whether only 'determination or review' finding of the DGTR can be challenged before CESTAT or also the 'order' of its acceptance by the Finance Ministry.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when GST rates applicable on a given product are reduced by the GST Council, its benefit should trickle down to the end consumer by reduction in prices of such products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that letting manufacturers increase the quantity of the product while charging the same MRP will defeat the purpose of rate-cuts.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that an authority constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can order businesses to reduce their prices following reduction in GST rates applicable to their products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that such authority can also impose penalty or cancel GST registration of those in default, in extreme cases.
Case title: M/S Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7116/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Customs can impose a penalty on a courier service which fails to report suspicious consignments being sent or received from abroad.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that courier agencies have a responsibility to ensure that whenever there are any suspicious courier packets being delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same ought to be reported to the concerned authority.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Customs Department recently informed the Delhi High Court that the Draft Baggage Rules (amending Baggage Rules, 2016) have been finalized and are ready to be issued.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were further informed that the Department is awaiting upgradation of IT infrastructure, for effective implementation of the new rules.
Case title: M/S A. L. Exports Through Its Proprietor Arsh v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15025/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came across a peculiar case relating to Input Tax Credit refund claim, whereby a notice for personal hearing was issued to the trader, after the Appellate Authority rejected its plea.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain flagged the glitch in the Department's portal, which generated a personal hearing notice after the passage of the final order.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit
Case title: AAI v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 643/2024
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ jurisdiction.”
Case title: Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4987/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance. FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “FIRCs need not match transaction by transaction and could even be on a periodic basis, so long as the total benefit that is being claimed by a party is fully supported by the foreign exchange which has been remitted to such party.”
Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport
Case title: Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors. v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13995/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry into alleged forgery of Customs stamps at the Delhi International Airport.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction after the Department claimed that the Customs stamp on an air traveller's representations in connection with their seized gold was fake.
Delhi High Court Asks GST Appellate Tribunal To Examine 'Profiteering' Allegations Against Tata Play
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14422/2022
The Delhi High Court recently asked the GST Appellate Tribunal to re-look into the profiteering allegations levelled against DTH services provider Tata Play.
The direction was made by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain while dealing with the company's appeal against the show cause notice and consequential order passed against it by the erstwhile National AntiProfiteering Authority (NAPA).
Case title: Purshottam Ray v. Principal Commissioner Of CGST & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15118/2025
In order to avoid duplication of GST cases, the Delhi High Court has asked its Registry to add a new field for filing of writ petitions to record DIN (Document Identification Number) and date of order being challenged.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction on observing that multiple writ petitions were being filed challenging same impugned orders, especially in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC (Input Tax Credit).
Case title: All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9971/2025
The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Central government for effectively withdrawing GST concessions granted to differently-abled persons on purchase of cars. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao asked the standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter and respond by December 17.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries reducing GST rate on vehicles from 28% to 18%, without granting any special concessions for the differently-abled.
Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15611/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground that it does not bear the signature of the official who has passed the order.
S.107 GST Act | Taxpayer Can't Ignore Order Merely Because Copy Was Illegible: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15509/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus refused to condone the taxpayer's delay in filing appeal against a GST demand order merely on the ground that the order supplied to it was illegible. It observed, “The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February, 2025 is not a legible order. If so, the Petitioner had a duty to approach the Department and obtain a legible order, if the Petitioner cannot completely ignore the fact that it had received a copy and had not filed an appeal challenging the same.”
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11521/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities…to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No.23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit. If any Commissionerate of Customs, are found permitting imports in violation thereof, would be liable for stringent action in accordance with law.”
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded in writing, that providing copies would be prejudicial to the investigation.”
Case title: Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15327/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has an embargo on an un-registered firm from filing a suit or any proceeding for enforcement of a right. However, the exceptions to the said provision are carved out in Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr. (2000).”
Case title: Nitco Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case no.: CUSAA 56/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that a CHA may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of its employee but, the punishment in that regard has to be proportionate.
Renting/Leasing Residential Premises For Use As Residence Exempt From GST: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mr. Gurdev Raj Kumar v. Collector Of Stamps (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1463/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that GST cannot be levied on renting/ leasing of residential premises for use as residence.
Justice Sachin Datta clarified thus while dealing with a plea to quash an order passed by the Collector of Stamps directing the petitioner to pay allegedly deficient stamp duty on a lease deed executed with a private company, in respect of a residential property in city's Vasant Vihar area.
Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3542/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of coming up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.
The bench opined that the question as to whether any product is obscene or not cannot, obviously, be left at the discretion of the Commissioner of Customs and other individual officials in the absence of uniform guidelines for consistent practice in this regard.
Case title: Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16555/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 61(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 bars further action against an assessee, including any demand under Section 73. For context, Section 61 empowers the proper officer to scrutinize the return furnished by the registered person and inform him of the discrepancies noticed. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that in case the explanation offered by the registered person is found to be acceptable, no further action shall be taken.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that since Section 73, which pertains to determination and recovery of tax, does not have a non-obstante clause, it comes within purview of Section 61(2) and thus, issuance of demand on the same ground on which the explanation was in fact found acceptable previously, would not be tenable.
Informer Of GST Evasion Cannot Seek Reward As A Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court
Case title: XY v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15498/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that an informer, who apprises the Department about evasion of goods and services tax by an entity, cannot seek reward for sharing such information as a matter of right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were of the prima facie view that no such right vests in any informer. “In the opinion of this Court, the grant of an award or a reward to an informer is a discretionary grant,” it said.
Case title: Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16315/2025
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Goods and Services Tax Department to expeditiously process the refund applications filed by registered persons/ entities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “As per the statutorily prescribed procedure, the refund applications have to be dealt with in a particular manner within the prescribed timelines as per law…if there is delay by the Department in processing and granting refunds, it has a cascading adverse effect on the business of the tax payers as well.”
Communication On Email Address Is Sufficient Service Under Section 169 GST Act: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2394/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “With respect to Section169 of the Act, this Court has also taken a view recently in W.P. (C) 4374/2025 titled Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, North & Anr. that communication on the email address is sufficient communication.”
Case title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16869/2025
The Delhi High Court has clarified that a traveller, whose goods are seized by the Customs, is not liable to pay a redemption fine or penalty for the release of goods if the Department failed to issue a show cause notice within the statutory timeframe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “It is the settled position in law, after Union of India &Anr. v. Jatin Ahuja (/2024) that without a SCN under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods of the Petitioner would be liable to be unconditionally released…In view of the above decision, the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the goods subject to payment of applicable Customs Duty. No redemption fine or penalty would be liable to be paid by the Petitioner and no interest would be liable to be charged.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15917/2025
The Delhi High Court recently slammed a trader, allegedly involved in clandestine manufacture of pan masala to evade tax and recovery of ₹70 lakh from his premises, for his failure to cooperate in the probe.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain in this backdrop upheld the GST Department's order, denying the Petitioner-trader's right to cross-examination. It observed, “the right to cross-examination is not an unfettered right…the non-filing of a reply to the SCN and the repeated adjournments which have been sought by the Petitioner…leaves no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has not co-operated with the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner's case, in the opinion of this Court, is prima facie not bona fide.”
Case title: Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16820/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where fraudulent availment of tax by a fake firm comes to light, penalties can be imposed on the person behind the bogus operations.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain observed, “When the expression 'taxable person' has to be interpreted, the 'taxable person', so long as it is an identified real person/entity it would be the said person/entity itself. However, in the case of fake, nonexistent and fraudulent firms, who do not have any real persons as partners or proprietors or even any incorporation, the 'taxable person' would be the person who has got such firms created and used the same for availment of ITC.”
Case title: M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13977/2025
In an unusual turn of events at the Delhi High Court, an “innocuous” petition filed by a trader seeking cancellation of its GST registration unravelled fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit worth lakhs.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the trader, ₹2 lakh of which would go to the Delhi High Court Bar Association, ₹2 lakh to the GST Department and remaining ₹1 lakh to the Sales Tax Bar Association.
Case title: M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16532/2025
The Central Goods and Services Tax Department recently explained to the Delhi High Court the process its officers follow when uploading any show cause notice or order on the GST portal. The explanation was tendered in response to a plea filed before the Court, challenging the legality of a demand order on the ground that the impugned SCN and the impugned order were not duly signed either physically or digitally.
The Department now uses digital keys to upload orders on the GST Portal, and without the digital key of the concerned officer, the orders as well as the SCNs cannot be uploaded.
Case title: Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16455/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC…there are complex transactions involved which require factual analysis and consideration of voluminous evidence, as also the detailed orders passed after investigation. In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal.”
Case title: BSNL v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 166/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) to belatedly challenge the Rs. 12,63,01,812/- imposed upon it by the Customs Department for misdeclaration of imported goods.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the public autonomous service provider showed no valid justification for the delay in approaching CESTAT however, “considering the fact that there was a voluntary declaration by B.S.N.L., prima facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of the B.S.N.L., that it is entitled to be heard on merits.”
Case title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15508/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the time limit set out under 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature, and cannot be excused on account of technical glitches on GST portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus quashed a SCN issued after the 3-month gap prescribed under the provision.
Case title: Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16214/2025
The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the Delhi Development Authority cannot levy GST on conversion of property from leasehold to freehold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Prime facie, it clearly appears that conversion is nothing but a part of the process of sale of the immovable property by the DDA to purchasers and GST would not be liable to be charged on such conversion in terms of Section 7(2) of the CGST Act itself.”
Case title: GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16259/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) provisionally attaching the bank accounts of a trader.
The provisional attachment was challenged on the ground of competency of the officer to pass such an order. Petitioner had argued that in terms of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 only the GST Commissioner can order provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.
Case Name: Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the application by the GST Department seeking the handing over of the parsed hard drives of the seized Central Processing Unit (CPU) of an advocate, which is in possession of the IT Officers of the Court, for further examination.
In doing so, the Court has instructed the presence of representatives from both sides, including a Court officer, and directed the submission of parsed data and hard drives to the Court.
Case title: M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15527/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Department for demanding tax on the total turnover of a company, despite figures of the actual sales being available with it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The Court finds a fundamental flaw in the approach of the Adjudicating Authority that, though the actual sales of the entire combo packs, on both B2B and B2C sales was available with the Adjudicating Authority, the GST is being demanded on the total turnover…The tax evasion, if any, is in respect of B2B and B2C sales. There is no reasoning given by the Adjudicating Authority, as to why GST is being sought to be levied on the total turnover.”
Case title: Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export]
Case no.: CUSAA 81/2019
The Delhi High Court recently refused to show any leniency to two employees of a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), found involved in smuggling of cigarettes worth Rs.3,40,74,000/-.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that CHAs and their employees are responsible to ensure discharge of obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Case title: Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1064/2025
The Delhi High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a company before conducting audit, holding that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by issuing the SCN before expiry of time granted to respond to the pre-SCN.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “the Petitioner was given time to file submissions till 28th November, 2024…However, surprisingly, the authority has decided to issue the SCN itself one day before the said day expires i.e. on 27th November, 2024 itself. Thus, this would be completely in violation of the principles of natural justice in terms of the pre-SCN itself. Accordingly, the SCN is set aside.”
Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16970/2025
Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The clear position is that the Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act as also the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The CHA ought to perform the same with diligence and commitment. In the present case, permitting misuse of the CHA licence, that too after receiving monthly remuneration for the same shows that the license itself has been sub-let without any control over the same.”
Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2685/2021
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that the Department had produced the seized gold jewellery in a sealed cover and the same, upon inspection, could not be termed as 'personal effect' of the Petitioner.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya
Case no.: CUSAA 162/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against a CESTAT order, restoring the Respondent-broker's license and setting aside forfeiture of security deposit.
Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16727/2025
The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, heard a writ petition on the constitutional validity of Notification No. 79/2020- Central Tax dated October 15, 2020 (Notification) issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Notification amended Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by making pre-consultation to the Show Cause Notice under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, discretionary and unlike the previous regime in which it was held to be mandatory.
“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case
Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17242/2025
The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.
Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction
Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)
Case no.: ST.APPL. 63/2014 (and batch)
The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.
Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules. However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before 15th October, 2014.
Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15169/2025
The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stated that the officials of the GST Department ought to have re-inspected the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue. It was also noted that present petition was limited to retrospective cancellation of the GST registration.
Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17106/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.
“It is seen that the SCN actually does not give any reasons…Even the impugned order does not give any reasons,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10189/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus held that Global Opportunities Private Limited will be entitled to claim GST refund on export of services under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Reconsidering Cap On Value Of Gold Jewellery Permitted At Airports: CBIC To Delhi High Court
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has informed the Delhi High Court that it is considering increasing the cap on the value of gold that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.
Currently, the Baggage Rules 2016 permit any jewellery of 20 grams with a value cap of Rs. 50,000/- in case of a man and 40 grams with a value cap of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of a woman to be cleared free of duty.
Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15646/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).
This, after a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner-Corporation had already deposited tax and interest in terms of Section 74(5).
Case Detail: A AND T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST Delhi, West
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a writ petition against the Show Cause Notice by the Customs Department, instead of the GST Department, for recovery of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) amounting to about Rs. 5 lakhs from the exporter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has listed the matter for February 24, 2026 while observing that “However, insofar as the question as the inter-play between the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the IGST Act and CGST Act is concerned, the matter requires consideration.”
Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17680/2025
The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Saurabh Banerjee while hearing Petitioner-firm's challenge to dismissal of its appeal against demand on the ground of it being barred by delay.
Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16741/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.
The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, who has a dealership agreement with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect of domestic & commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas for a period of 10 years.
Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16724/2025
The Delhi High Court recently allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain said, “the Petitioner cannot be rendered completely remediless in this matter as he may have proceeded on the legal advice.”
Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16137/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.
For context, Section 110 deals with Seizure of goods. It stipulates that where any goods are seized, and no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods shall be returned. Provided that the Principal Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months.
Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15791/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
“Statements under Section 108 would not be admissible in evidence,” said a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16345/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain was dealing with a challenge to detention of Petitioner's gold chain weighing 54 grams.
Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers
Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3542/2025 (and connected petition)
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.
Petitioners' import goods were confiscated for alleged mis-declaration of sex toys as body massagers. While ordering their provisional release, the Court had previously asked the Department to come up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of such products.
Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case No: W.P(C) No. 5464/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a writ petition filed by Navin Road Lines, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) refusing to entertain the Service Tax appeal on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit was not made under the Service Tax head, even though the assessee had already deposited ₹1,49,190 under the Excise category.
Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17699/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further criticised the GST Appellate Authority, which upheld the cancellation in a 'cavalier' manner. The judges remarked, “The present petition reveals a sad situation where a reputed company is being made to deal with an unjustified cancellation of its GST registration…There is no reason given in the impugned order as to why the documents filed by the Petitioner were not considered, except stating that your reply is not considerable…An Adjudicating Authority has to show basic fairness, especially in the case of companies which are regular tax payers and who have filed the replies in time along with the requisite documents.”
Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17371/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.
Perusing the language in which the provision is couched, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “...it uses the word 'shall'. However, the provision also stipulates that the said period is to be adhered where it is possible to do so.”
Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body
Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17694/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing the plea of a foreign education consultancy company, whose appeals for tax refund have been pending since four long years.
Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 16754/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held the challenge to the SCN as 'premature' and noted existence of a clandestine server that revealed a parallel accounting system and modus operandi of the Petitioner. The High Court deliberated upon GST evasion of more than Rs. 88 crores through suppressing income, dual books, underpriced invoices, statutory audit records, digital devices including WhatsApp communication as set out in the Show Cause.
Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17500/2025
The Delhi High Court recently said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).
Vide the said decision, the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain had held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.
Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness
Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16974/2025
The Delhi High Court recently condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of the medical records, were of the view that the lapse was “bonafide”.
Case Detail: South East Asia Company vs. Superintendent, CGST
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17469/2025
The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years.
In an order dated November 18, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the Petitioner to take recourse to a single consolidated appeal against consolidated GST demands raised via one order while stating that whether Section 74 was correctly invoked was a matter for appeal.
Case Title: Vaneeta Impex Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) 15169/2025 & CM APPL.62228/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal.
The Bench stated that the law does not permit duplication of pre-deposit for the same tax demand, and therefore the taxpayer should be allowed to file an appeal without paying again.
Case title: MS Jamil Trading Co Thrg Proprietor Mr Jamil Ahmed v. Union Of India Thrg The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10513/2025
The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.
“The personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals but a hearing was fixed for uploading of the order. Such a practice is inexplicable and deserves to be re-looked at as no useful purpose is served by giving a personal hearing for the purpose of uploading an order,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said.
Case title: Monish Kansal Through Spa Ritik Agnihotri v. Commissioner Of Custom & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14621/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the high-value Rolex watch of a NRI, citing Supreme Court's ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017). In the said judgment, the top court had held that foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The Petitioner being a permanent U.S. resident, this matter would be covered clearly by the decision of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani.”
Case title: Monish Mohammed v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2376/2024
The Delhi High Court recently permitted a labourer, working in the middle-east, to redeem gold bars confiscated by the Customs Department, after a four-year delay.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar took note of the Petitioner's financial status, which purportedly prevented him from paying the redemption fine in time.
Case title: Sanchit Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs (and connected matter)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10380/2025 (and connected matter)
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs on two Petitioners who falsely claimed that their old gold jewellery was seized by the Customs Department upon their arrival from Dubai.
On production of the gold items before it, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “it is clear that the gold items are not used gold jewellery of the Petitioners, and the same are absolutely brand new jewellery, which is stated to have been purchased by the Petitioners in Dubai and were being brought to India.”
Case title: Javed Ali Gouse v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15765/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot make a passenger or his lawyer sign an undertaking for waiver of show cause notice or personal hearing, when they appear for appraisement of seized articles.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with an NRI's plea, whose gold chain was seized by the Customs on his arrival from Saudi Arabia.
Case title: M/S Eves Fashion v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17991/2025
In a rare instance of relief, the Delhi High Court has directed the GST Department to restore the registration of a trader, cancelled over three years ago, citing the medical issues and dispute with the Chartered Accountant which prevented it from acting earlier.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Mini Pushkarna observed, “The present case presents a peculiar set of facts, where the Petitioner has had medical reasons and a dispute with his Chartered accountant, which led to GST Registration being cancelled. Although under ordinary circumstances, the Court is not inclined to condone delay, the present case indicates that the Petitioner is a bona fide trader who intends to continue his business and requires his GST Registration to be restored for the said purpose.”
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi vs. TC Global India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SERTA20/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that TC Global, operating as an App-based platform offering admission support solutions like promotional and marketing services, advertisements, roadshows, fairs, counselling to foreign universities, against payment in foreign exchange would qualify as 'Export of Service' instead of 'Intermediary Service'.
In a judgment dated November 28, 2025, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar affirmed CESTAT Delhi order that held Respondent not liable to service tax as an 'intermediary' in terms of Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. On the aspect that activities were promotional or marketing and not arranging admissions as 'agent' the High Court explained how a consistent legal position had been set by the decisions of Global Opportunities, Ernst &Young Limited, K.C. Overseas wherein Supreme Court has dismissed the challenge by Department.
Case title: Roovi v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9063/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition challenging confiscation of an air travellers' gold jewellery by the Customs, citing disputed ownership of the gold.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “The foundational facts of the petition itself would be different in as much as the detention receipt has been issued only to one lady but the gold is claimed by three ladies. The ownership of these bangles would have to be determined. These issues cannot be gone into in a Writ petition as these are disputed questions of fact.”
Case title: Nazarmammet Nuryyyalev v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2023
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of three years by a Turkmenistanian national in redeeming his gold jewellery from the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar granted the relief noting that “the Petitioner had visited India for medical treatment of his wife and the gold jewellery was for payment of the same, as also the fact that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender”.
Case Name: Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication)
Case No. : W.P.(C) 12619/2025
The Delhi High Court in a writ petition pertaining to service of notice through speed post where delivery reports could not be found, sets aside ex-parte demand order creating a demand to the tune of Rs. 1 crore.
In an order dated November 24, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar examined whether notices for personal hearing (Jan–Mar 2024) were properly served. On the aspect of service of notice, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority since Petitioner was 'not heard' and amount deposited was 'higher' than pre-deposit amount.
Case title: Manpar Exim INC v. Additional Director, DGGI And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18204/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that pre-SCN Consultative Notice prima facie serves no purpose in large-scale GST fraud cases involving multiple entities and a complex maze of transactions.
Pre-SCN consultation was mandatory under Rule 142 (1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It prescribed that a proper officer shall, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer.
Case title: M/S A V Metals Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner CGST & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18230/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST Department to exercise caution when mentioning financial year, other relevant dates in the show cause notices and orders issued by it to a taxpayer.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar sounded the note of caution after coming across a case where the authority inadvertently mentioned the due date for filing reply to the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner as 28th August, 2025, instead of 28th August, 2024.
Case title: Dhruv Mittal v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12774/2025
The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for repeatedly delaying implementation of its orders for release of articles seized from passengers arriving from abroad.
Calling out the authority's “delaying tactics”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar warned of “stringent action” along with imposition of costs on errant officials.
Case Title: Clyde Pumps Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4400/2022
The Delhi High Court held that legitimate transactional Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied when the assessee was unable to file TRAN-1 due to a GST portal glitch during the shift to the GST regime. The bench noted that since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month.
The bench, consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, stated that due to a glitch in the GST portal, the assessee could not file the form TRAN-01, and since the form could not be filed in time, the distribution could not take place as per Rule 39(1)(a) of the CGST Rules within one month. Hence, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefit of the ITC due to mere technical glitches or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently.
Case Detail: National Fregrance vs. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court in a matter involving export of mouth freshner/pan masala, where two differing Test Reports were issued and refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) was denied, has flagged validity of Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) test reports.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing writ petitions filed by Exporters/Petitioners of tobacco products including pan masala and mouth fresheners who had challenged the letter issued by Customs directing not to issue IGST refund basis test report classifying their product as Gutka . The Petitioners put forth that second test report which arrived at a conclusion that products imported were 'Gutka' and not 'Mouth Freshners Pan Masala' was not tenable in absence of drawl of fresh samples.
Case Detail: Interglobe Aviation Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (Refund), Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & ORS.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a plea by Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) over denial of an estimated refund of over Rs. 900 crores of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Customs duty on re-imported aircraft parts that were repaired abroad. The Customs Writ Petition filed on December 11, 2025 was mentioned before a Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain.
Delhi High Court Quashes ₹45.36 Crore GST Demand Against NBCC After Finance Ministry Clarification
Case Title: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a Rs 45.36 crore GST demand raised against NBCC (India) Ltd, a state-owned construction and project management company under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in connection with the redevelopment of East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
A division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain set aside the demand after relying on a clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stated that the Union Ministry itself was the principal supplier of leasing services from the project and that NBCC acted only as its implementing agency.
Case Detail: JK India (Fabs) vs. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C)-14644/2022
The Delhi High Court in a matter where importer could not avail Infrastructure Cess exemption due to technical glitch, has directed the Customs Department to re-assess and refund the excess Infrastructure Cess of ₹55,876.29 paid by the Petitioner on imported electrically operated golf carts.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that since Electronically Operated Golf Carts qualified for exemption from payment of Infrastructure Cess, the excess amount paid cannot be held back.
Case Name: Manikjeet Singh Kals vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the adjudication process in a matter involving validity of a Show Cause Notice which was signed by an Officer, but portal reflected the same under the name of another Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain relegated the Petitioner to avail remedy of appeal against order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Delhi (South), CGST before the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram. The Delhi High Court observed that when there were multiple parties involved and Show Cause Notices have to be adjudicated, the Adjudicating Authority was fixed on the basis of the jurisdiction which has the highest tax demand.
Case Detail: MD. Aniqul Islam VS. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Delhi
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Writ Petitions challenging GST Summons issued by the Enforcement Agency, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) alleging clandestine trading of tobacco on 'merits'.
In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deliberated on the interplay between Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Delhi High Court made observations on how 'Summons' for the purpose of 'Inquiry' shall be deemed 'Judicial Proceeding'.
Case title: Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Division - Okhla, Central Goods And Service Tax (Delhi South) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12049/2023
The Delhi High Court dismissed a retail business' plea seeking benefit of government's tax amnesty scheme for a second show cause notice issued to it post the cut-off date, in pursuance of the first SCN.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain clarified that mere reference to earlier SCN doesn't make subsequent SCN eligible under Sabka Vikas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDR Scheme).
Case Name: Aggarwal Construction Co. Through Its Proprietor Mr.Sanjeev Aggarwal vs. Commissioner CGST
In yet another writ petition, concerning works contract services provided to Delhi Jal Board, where its status as a 'Local Authority' was called-into-question, the Delhi High Court has stayed the summary Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that few similar disputes relating to whether when rendering works contract services to Delhi Jal Board, the Construction Company treated it as a 'Local Authority' and paid GST at concessional rate of 12%.
Case title: M/S Era Infra Engineering Limited v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2281/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the GST Department cannot raise fresh demands for a period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, after the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain held, “no demand can be raised after the resolution plan has been approved ,in respect of a period prior thereto.”
Case title: M/S Truespices India Inc v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18966/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs authorities to consider releasing the bank guarantee of a city-based pan masala exporter, forfeited after conflicting lab reports about adulteration of its export products with tobacco.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that when no objections were found in the first lab test report (CRCL), “the circumstances which warranted the issuance of the second CRCL report are completely unknown and it does not specify as to why the same were issued.”
Case title: Mohit Mann v. UoI
Case no.: REVIEW PET. 621/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that under the garb of attending weddings where wearing gold jewellery is a common affair, a foreigner of Indian origin cannot be permitted to bring half kg gold jewellery to India.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar further added that there was no explanation for the Petitioner, a US citizen, to bring 17 high value mobile phones (iPhones) to India and walk through the green channel.
Case title: Navneet Bansal v. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4723/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the precedents barring invocation of writ jurisdiction in cases involving complex GST/ ITC transactions equally apply to cases of fraudulent CENVAT Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar observed, “This Court has consistently taken the view that in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC, ordinarily, the Court would not be inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction…In such cases, it would be necessary to consider the burden on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal. In the opinion of this Court, the same shall be applicable to cases of CENVAT Credit.”
Can GST Be Levied On Medicines Supplied During In-Patient Treatment? Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Detail: Escorts Heart Institute And Research Centre Limited vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit
The Delhi High Court will examine whether GST can be demanded on medicines and consumables supplied to patients as part of inpatient treatment.
The court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare, challenging a GST demand of Rs 6.66 crore, along with interest and penalty.
Case title: M/S J.K. Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sh. Jai Kishan Bansal v. Superintendent, Delhi North, Ward-24, Zone-1, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8293/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in cases involving multiple noticees, adjudication has to be done by a single commissionerate, depending upon the highest monetary demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases involving multiple noticees, the adjudication cannot be done by different commissionerates and the commissionerate is decided, depending upon the monetary demands that are proposed to be raised and the manner in which the investigation would have proceeded.”
Case title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 17289/2025
The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to be reflected in the order or in any other communication like a Show Cause Notice, failing which there is no way of knowing as to who has passed the order.”
Performance Incentives Earned By Advertising Agency From Media Firms Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Delhi Iv Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate v. M/S Nexus Alliance Advertising And Marketing Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SERTA 36/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the incentives received by an advertising agency from media firms for achieving benchmark targets is not susceptible to levy of service tax.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “achieving targets or revenue benchmarks are part of the service that is already being rendered and since there is no additional service to the media house, it cannot be held that the incentives which are given by the media houses would be liable to service tax as it constitutes a 'business auxiliary service'.”
Case Name: ICICI Bank Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
In yet another writ petition by ICICI Bank, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ICICI Bank in a demand pertaining to charged levied by the Bank for not maintaining a Minimum Average Balance (MAB).
As is the norm in the banking sector, while opening a bank account, the customer signs an Account Opening Form post which the banking relationship is activated. One of the conditions set out in the Form is that the customer must maintain a MAB in its account.
Case title: Eastern Broadcast Solutions Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Import) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3434/2017
The Delhi High Court recently upheld the import duty imposed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission on a company authorised by BCCI to provide broadcast equipment and associated services for covering the Indian Premier League in 2012.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that under normal circumstances, this duty would have been liable to be refunded to the Petitioner as the import was merely temporary in nature.
Case title: Sayara v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 18588/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for wasting public resources by withholding seized goods despite an adjudication order already having directed its unconditional release, eventually leading to avoidable litigation.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “The present is a case which shows how the resources of the Customs Department are completely being wasted away in such matters.”
Case title: Pranij Heights India Pvt Ltd v. The Joint Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14733/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department need not communicate to an importer that the time for adjudicating a show cause notice issued to it has been extended by virtue of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “usually, the Customs Department ought to intimate any extension which is granted, to the parties concerned. But this would not be a fatal error in the present case as the communication of the same is not mandated in the provision, i.e., Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.”
Title: Kapil Madan v. Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the authorities must provide exemption from GST on air purifiers, considering the air pollution situation in the national capital as an “emergency.”
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL to declare air-purifiers as “medical devices” and remove imposition of 18% GST on them.
Case title: M/S RR Fashion v. Union Of India And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 19145/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with the case of Petitioners, situated in Chennai, but challenging seizure memos in Delhi on the ground that its goods were tested at CRCL, Delhi.
Case Detail: Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
The Delhi High Court, in a matter involving claim of Customs Duty exemption on import of Enzyme linked Immuno Absorbent Assay (ELISA) Kits for antibiotic testing in food as 'diagnostic kits' will hear the plea by food safety importers in January 2026.
Recently, a Division Bench comprising, Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain were hearing an appeal by the importer against denial of the exemption by Delhi, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Case Detail: Chinu Kumar vs. Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence
The Delhi High Court on Friday, December 26 2025 has granted bail to an Accountant allegedly involved in running fictitious firms and passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,00,000.
A Vacation Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan found this a fit case for regular bail noting 'no previous involvements' with co-accused already released on bail in 2024 in Bail Application No. 1968/2024. Further, from the status report the Delhi High Court inferred that the main beneficiary was MBook Technology (now Metal Book Technologies private Limited) with Mr. Pulkit Baldev and Mr. Aman Tibrewal at its helm.
Delhi High Court Allows Use Of Transitional CENVAT Credit For Mandatory Pre-Deposit Before CESTAT
Case Name: Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court, in a 'rare' scenario where an appeal was sought to be admitted before the CESTAT on the strength of pre-deposit made using through DRC-03, has clarified that pre-deposit was partial component of the demand just as tax, interest and penalty.
In a recent judgment dated December 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court dealt with whether CENVAT credit transitioned into the GST regime as on July 01, 2017 could be utilised for the purpose of making pre-deposit or not.
Case title: Sanjeev Maggu v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5184/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs officials discharging their duties in an official capacity are not liable to be cross-examined as a matter of right during adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain made the observation while partially allowing a writ petition challenging denial of Petitioner's request to cross-examine certain persons in a customs duty evasion case.
Case title: VDR Colors And Chemicals Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14291/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the tax department is unable to place on record proof of dispatch of a personal hearing notice such as entries in a dispatch register, speed post receipts, or email records— it does not automatically follow that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST orders passed in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).
Gauhati HC
Case title: Shri Shambhu Prasad v. The State Of Assam And Ors
Case no.: WP(C)/6807/2024
The Gauhati HIgh Court has held that the Show Cause Notice issued to an assessee under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Statement issued along with the SCN as well as an Order passed under Section 73(9) must mandatorily be signed by the Proper Officer.
Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “As it is the statutory mandate that it is only the Proper Officer who has the authority to issue Show Cause Notice and the Statement and pass the order, the authentication in the Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order by the Proper Officer is a must and failure to do so, makes the Show Cause Notice, Statement and Order ineffective and redundant.”
Case title: Dharmendra Agarwal v. The Union Of India And 2 Ors.
Case no.: WP(C)/6963/2024
The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which confers power to arrest on a Commissioner under the Act, requires the authority to not only record 'reasons to believe' that an assessee committed the specified offence but also specify the necessity to arrest.
While dealing with a writ petition challenging Petitioner's arrest, Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “The requirement under Sub-section (1) of Section 69 is to have “reasons to believe” that not only a person has committed any offence as specified but also as to why such person needs to be arrested.”
Case title: M/S High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP v. Joint Director, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Inteligence (DGGI)
Case no.: WP(C)/4787/2024
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The provision stipulates documentary requirements and conditions for a registered person claiming input tax credit (ITC).
A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that the provision was enacted based on powers derived from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under Section 164, not from the unenforced Section 43A.
Carbonated Fruit Drinks Qualify As Fruit Beverages, Taxable At 12% GST: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: X'S Beverage CO. v. The State of Assam
Case Number: W.P(C) NO. 5347/2022
The Gauhati High Court stated that carbonated fruit drinks qualify as fruit beverages and are taxable at 12% GST.
The Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia opined that “where the subject product contains soluble solids and fruit content as per the report of the State Food Laboratory, it cannot be said to be akin to water, mineral water or aerated water. Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. The classifications by the petitioner of the items under the subject head Fruit Pulp or Fruit Based Drink appear to be correct.”
Case Title: Shahima Khatun v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/3300/2025
The Gauhati High Court stated that the restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that “proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 provides that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form i.e. Form GST REG-20.”
Case Title: Naser Ali Mondal v The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/4157/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.”
Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹19.5 Crore GST Notice Against PepsiCo
Case Title: M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
Case Number: WP(C)/6960/2023
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed a ₹19.5 crore show cause notice (SCN) issued to food and beverage giant PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under the CGST Act, ruling that the GST department failed to comply with the mandatory process of return scrutiny before initiating tax demand proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the SCN could not have been issued without providing PepsiCo an opportunity to explain its stance.
Case Title: Faiz Ahmed v. The State of AP
Case Number: AB/103/2025
The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 199.31 crores, which was passed to 58 firms across 11 States using fabricated invoices totalling Rs. 658.88 Crores.
Justice Kardak Ete was dealing with the case where the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, had created a fictitious firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, using forged documents, including a fake seal of JMFC Changlang, Aadhaar, PAN Card, and electricity bills.
Case Title: Dhirghat Hardware Stores and Anr. v. The Union of India and 3 ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/5944/2025
The Gauhati High Court has held that GST Registration can be restored even after expiry of the revocation period if the assessee complies with Rule 22(4) CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax Rules), 2017 requirements.
The Single Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, opined that if the assessee submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the assessee for restoration of GST registration and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the assessee.
Case Title: M/s McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 5725 of 2022
The Gauhati High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier failed to upload invoice details in Form GSTR-1, and has read down Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act and AGST Act to protect genuine taxpayers.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee, M/s McLeod Russel India Limited, holding that while the provision itself is not unconstitutional, ITC cannot be denied without giving the purchaser an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transaction through invoices and supporting documents.
Case Title: Pritam Sovasaria v. The Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/4700/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that a GST registration cannot be cancelled on the basis of a cryptic show cause notice, which merely quotes statutory provisions without disclosing the factual grounds.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noted that apart from stating the provisions of Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act, there are no facts or any details stated in the show cause notice.
Case Title: Patanjali Foods Limited v. The State of Assam and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/6430/2025
The Gauhati High Court found that Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017, which restricts input tax credit, runs contrary to the Constitutional framework and the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the bench stayed the operation of the show-cause notices (SCN) issued to Patanjali Foods Limited.
Justice Manish Choudhury was addressing a case in which Patanjali Foods Limited, the assessee, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause 8 of the Assam Industries [Tax Reimbursement for Eligible Units] Scheme, 2017.
GST Registration Can Be Restored If Returns And Dues Are Cleared: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Shri Pankaj Mohan Vs. The Union of India &Anr.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 7342 of 2025
The Gauhati High Court has allowed a writ petition seeking restoration of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration which had been cancelled due to non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months.
A single judge bench of Justice Kardak Ete was hearing the petition filed by a proprietor engaged in execution of works contracts, whose GST registration was cancelled by the GST authorities after issuance of a show cause notice alleging continuous default in filing returns.
Case Title: Sameer Malik v. The Union of India
Case Number: Bail Appln./3951/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that even though GST investigations are revenue in nature, arrests made by GST officers must strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Pranjal Das opined that even with regard to arrest by revenue authorities under GST, the procedural compliance under Sections 35/47/48 B.N.S.S. are essential, failing which, the arrest may become bad in law.
Gujarat HC
Case title: Infodesk India Pvt. Limited Versus The Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 25609 of 2022
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that where a subsidiary company provides goods or services to its parent company in its independent capacity, it cannot be said that such services fall under 'intermediary service' under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and DN Ray observed, “it is apparent that the petitioner is required to assist the US entity in carrying on the business of providing information and consultancy in business of software development and for that purpose, the petitioner is required to set up consultations and meetings between globally based experts and globally based clients and to participate in any business of consultants, agents, sub-agents, liaison agents/liaison sub-agents for its parent company and foreign clients for such activities. The petitioner is also to provide advisory services for expansion of business, marketing, advertisement, publicity, personnel accounting to its parent company. Therefore, on conjoint reading of the scope of services to be provided by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is only to work as an agent or a broker between parent company and its customers without supplying any goods or services on its own account.”
Case Title: M/S SHREENATHJI EXTRUCTION v/s UNION OF INDIA AND
Case no.: R/SCA/17685 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court recently issued notice on a plea challenging the validity of Section 75(2) CGST Act wherein if the concerned court or authority concludes that show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) to a person for tax evasion is unsustainable as the charges of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts aren't established, then the department shall determine the tax payable as if the notice was issued under Section 73(1).
For context, Section 73(1) states that where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for "any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax", he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with such a tax, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
Case Title: M/s Sopariwala Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6701 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court has referred a matter to the GST Council to decide on whether the compensation cess is leviable on goods supplied to merchant exporter.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray observed that “…no notification is issued by the Central Government or State Government under the Compensation Cess Act and therefore, the assessee is made liable to pay Compensation Cess at normal rate i.e. 160% on the supply of goods to merchant exporters for export…”
Case Title: M/s Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22519 of 2019
The Gujarat High Court stated that omission of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules, 2017 operates prospectively but applies to all pending proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray was addressing the issue where a group of petitions have challenged the vires of Rule 96(10) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as substituted by the Central Goods and Services Tax (12th Amendment) Rules, 2018 with effect from 9.10.2018.
State Tax Authorities Not Mandated To Issue DIN With Orders Or Summons: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s NRM Metals (India) Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4910 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court stated that state tax authorities not mandated to issue din with orders or summons.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia andP.M. Ravalobserved that “there is no mechanism of issuance of DIN on any of the communication, notice, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the assessee, that the DIN is not mentioned in any of the summons and the previously attachment order being without any basis, is rejected.”
Gujarat High Court Upholds Validity Of GST Advisory On Interest For Delayed Tax Payment
Case Title: Reliance Formulation Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ghatak 21, Division 2
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5453 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the validity of the GST advisory on interest for delayed tax payment.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi stated that the reference to Section 79 of the GST Act in the advisory is only to put the assessee on guard as to such outstanding liability as per the record of the Authority so that the assessee can either make the payment of such liability if agreed or may oppose the same when the notice in Form GST DRC-01D is received by the assessee for recovery of such amount.
Case Title: Sazid Ali Khan v. Office of Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Vadodara-I & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6437 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court held that GST officers issuing summons/arrest memo are not required to be cross-examined by assessee.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi observed that the assessee wants to cross-examine the persons who belongs to the department who have either issued the summons or arrest memo. Such persons are not required to be cross-examined by the assessee.
Case Title: Vineet Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17720 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court held that statutory interest mandatorily payable under Section 56 GST Act on refunds delayed beyond 60 days.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi stated that the provision of section 56 of the GST Act is a mandatory provision and the interest which is required to be paid under section 56 is compensatory in nature for delayed payment of refund which otherwise is not in dispute.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2010
The Gujarat High Court, while quashing the penalty of Rs. 25.53 Cr. on Hindustan Coca-Cola, stated that the amount of tax could not have been bifurcated by the revenue simply because the sales had been inclusive of tax.
The bench found that there is no evidence on record to show that the assessee had collected any amount by way of tax from its distributors, retailers or customers, as the sales invoice shows the 'Nil' tax in the sales tax column along with the fact that there was an endorsement on the sales invoice that the sales taxes are exempted from payment of tax.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1417 of 2008
The Gujarat High Court stated that the customs commissioner cannot reassess duty on warehoused imports cleared from refineries beyond his jurisdiction.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi agreed with the Tribunal that a proper officer having the administrative jurisdiction over the respective refineries where the goods were removed under section 67 of the Customs Act, 1962, only could have assumed the jurisdiction for reassessment and not the Commissioner, Jamnagar, who can only be considered as proper officer till the goods were permitted to be warehoused on provisional assessment.
Case Title: Cardiogy Ltd. & Anr. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Anr.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16927 of 2011
The Gujarat High Court has held that the supply of medicines and implants by private hospitals to in-patients amounts to 'deemed sale' and is liable to VAT (Value Added Tax). The issue before the bench was whether the supply of medicines, stents, implants, consumables, etc., during the course of treatment of patients amounts to 'sale' as defined in section 2(23) of the VAT Act.
The bench, consisting of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray, observed that after the 46th Amendment to the Constitution, the definition of “works contract” was widened and it is broad-based based taking within its fold every possible and conceivable contract involving transfer of property while providing services.
Case Name: Kamnath Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer
Case No. : Special Civil Application No. 1231 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court has extended benefit of Amnesty Scheme under the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act, 2003 to dealer who was precluded from making full payment under the Scheme on account of 'automatic' re-adjustment of instalment amount.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi set aside rejection of application under the Scheme noting that non-payment of differential amount was only due to technical glitches of the online portal. The High Court emphasized on 'clear and unequivocal intent' to avail the Scheme and observed that “The delay of 2 days in making the payment in the aforesaid Scheme is condoned.”
Case Name: VVF India Ltd. vs. Union Of India
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 4418 of 2014
The Gujarat High Court in a writ petition has quashed a show cause notice creating duty demand of about Rs. 464 crores on import of Crude Palm Kernel Oil (Edible Grade).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi ruled on whether Oil even if of edible grade but required refining before human consumption qualified for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2022-Customs r/w Notification No. 21/2002-Customs (Exemption Notification). The High Court rejected the interpretation that crude palm kernel oil imported of edible grade is not eligible for exemption on account of the 'end-use condition' specified in the Exemption Notification.
Case Detail: Shah Paper Plast Industries Limited & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 18892 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Petitioners—100% EOUs exporting goods without payment of tax—were entitled to refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(4), and that their exports did not fall within the category of “deemed exports.”
The Court ruled that Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST and Rule 89(4A) were inapplicable, quashed the withdrawal and recovery of refunds issued under Section 73, rejected the retrospective reclassification of zero-rated supplies as deemed exports, and directed restoration of refunds within 12 weeks while leaving broader questions of law on refund scrutiny and recovery open.
Case title: GATEWAY EXIM v/s STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS.
Case no.: R/SCA/7183/2025
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (December 3) quashed order issued to entity for failing to intimate about personal hearing, which had claimed that after notice of GST DRC-01 was issued to it, the authority did not intimate the date and time of personal hearing which was against principles of natural justice.
In doing so the court said while issuing DRC-01 it would not be mandatory to incorporate the date and time of personal hearing; however once subsequent proceedings progress, but before the final order is passed, the assessee must be intimated the date and time of personal hearing.
Case Detail: PFIZER Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: Special Civil Application No. 143 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court has allowed writ petition by Pfizer, a pharmaceutical major against the Value Added Tax (VAT) Tribunal order that expressly barred the consideration of any additional Form-F.
In a judgment dated November 20, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Pranav Trivedi and Justice A.S. Supehia noted the 11-year pendency in litigation in relation to production of Form-F under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In this vein, the High Court deliberated on piecemeal production of Form-F for interstate branch transfers. It held the additional Form-F valued at ₹16 crores in terms of VAT Tribunal order as maintainable since Petitioner stated that future claims would be waived by it.
Case Name: Infodesk India Private Limited
The Gujarat High Court has held that rendering software consultancy services including editorial and content creation activities as well as customer support services to Infodesk Inc., Parent Company in the United States is 'export of service' and not 'intermediary service'.
In a judgment dated November 27, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the refund rejection order as in passing the same lower authorities erred in holding that Petitioner was providing 'Intermediary Service'. The Gujarat High Court clarified that Content integration by adding insight (smart data which is run through AI techniques and human curation) that helps resolve challenges in business did not constitute as an 'Intermediary Service'.
Case title: M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v/s THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8843 of 2025
After almost 20 year litigation, the Gujarat High Court permitted a public sector energy enterprise to claim branch transfer exemption of over Rs 6 crore under the Central Sales Tax Act, which was denied earlier on non-production of the original Form-F.
Form F is a document used for branch transfer of goods in the course of inter-state trade, which permits claiming of exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST) on such transactions.
Case Title: M/S Panchhi Traders Through its Authorized Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki Vs State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Anr.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 9250 of 2020 and connected matters
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the power of GST authorities to confiscate goods and conveyances during transit where there is a clear intent to evade tax, and has clarified the scope and interplay of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, while deciding a large batch of writ petitions, held that Sections 129 (detention and seizure of goods in transit) and 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyances) operate independently and are not inter-dependent, even after the amendments.
Case Detail: NBCC (India) Limited vs. Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi South
The Gujarat High Court has held that reliance on statements of witnesses without allowing the manufacturer opportunity to cross‑examine, while ignoring those statements that testified in favour of the manufacturer, violates principles of natural justice.
In a judgment delivered on November 25, 2025 Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi quashed the penalty order and culled-out 8 quintessential features of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly, clauses (a ) and (b) that introduces the element of cross-examination of the witness who has given the statement before a Customs Officer.
Case Name: Rajhans Metals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Case No.: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1564 of 2011 & R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1037 of 2008
The Gujarat High Court has allowed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input used in setting up of a Windmill, away from factory premises, on the strength of nexus of the inputs with output activity, electricity generation.
A Division Bench comprising, Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi in twin writ petitions has set aside order of CESTAT Ahmedabad that disallowed CENVAT credit on the ground that credit of inputs and input services utilized away from the factory site for setting-up Windmill could not be availed. In turn, the Gujarat High Court emphasized on 'nexus with manufacturing activity' noting that installation, erection and commissioning were 'exclusively' used in the manufacturing activity viz. electricity generated at Windmill.
Case Name: Durga Gopal Shinde Sole Proprietorship vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
The Gujarat High Court has restored GST registration subject to compliance with filing of pending returns and payment of outstanding tax with interest, late fee and penalty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi permitted filing of GST returns for past period after noting copy of GST Returns for the period from April 2022 to December 2024, self-ascertained tax liability discharged through Electronic Cash Ledger.
Case title: THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - KANDLA v/s M/A DEVAM IMPEX
Case no.: R/TAX APPEAL NO.507 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court upheld ruling of Customs Authority for Advance Rulings granting exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty for inshell-walnuts imported by an entity treating the goods as "dietary fibre".
The respondent- assessee is a transferee of Duty-Free Import Authorisations issued against the export of Assorted Confectionary Products (SION E-1) and Biscuits (SION E-5).
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case title: M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner and another
Case no.: Civil Revision No. 267 of 2017
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.
Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7).
Case Name: M/s Himalaya Wellness Company v/s Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 9239 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a show cause notice is issued under Section 74 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and objections can't be raised on the ground that it was issued with a preconceived notion or that it violates the principles of natural justice.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja: “Merely because the petitioner has been served with the show cause notice would not mean that the same has been issued with the pre-conceived mind and in violation of natural justice”.
No Equity In Taxation Law: Himachal Pradesh High Court On Tax Liability Of Auction Purchaser
Case Name: Arif Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No.1948 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an auction Purchaser is liable to pay the outstanding taxes on vehicles acquired through auction. It stated that there is no equity in taxation law and equity would only come into play in case there is no law operating in the field.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “It is more than settled that there is no equity in taxation law and further more equity would only come into play in case there is no law operating in the field. Here, there is already law operating in the field and therefore, equity has to yield before law. For, it is well settled that whenever conflict is between the law and equity, law would prevail”.
Case Name: Shyama Power India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWP No.6990 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when a taxpayer deposits an amount “under protest”, it does not amount to an admission of tax liability.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed as follows: “Once the petitioner had deposited the amount 'under protest', the same could not have been considered to be an admission of liability because the necessary corollary of deposit under protest is that the amount towards the alleged liability has been deposited without admitting the liability and inherent therein is his right to challenge the order.”
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another
Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 338 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that fake supplier addresses indicate prima facie GST evasion and refused to quash complaint under Section 69 of CGST Act.
“When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address”, stated the bench.
Case Title: M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No.6358 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, applying the Supreme Court's Armour Security case, held that once proceedings are initiated by either the State or Central GST authority, parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same issue are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the contractors were liable to pay GST at a rate prevalent on the last day for the submission of the tenders and not when the work was allocated as the same was clear from the Special Condition No.49 existing in the contract agreement.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta observed that the review petitioner being a contracting party was bound by the terms of the contract which provides that tax rates as prevailing on the last due date for receipt of tenders will be applicable and in the absence of any challenge to above provision at any point of time the arguments presented were unsustainable.
Case-Title: Commissioner State Taxes and anr. Vs M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be imposed by invoking provisions of the State Act in the absence of an express charging section. The Court held that the Central Act is a “self-contained code” and provides its own framework for imposition of penalties, which cannot be supplemented by state laws.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the petition challenging the absence of a penalty under Section 6 of the J&K Entry Tax Act, 2000, and underscored the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
Case-Title: IQBAL MUBARIK vs UT of J&K
Case no.: WP(C) No. 1154/2024
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the Department of Home is liable to reimburse GST in addition to the fixed rent to hotel owners whose accommodations have been requisitioned for housing security forces. The petitioner had filed the petition seeking a direction that the tax amount be paid or reimbursed separately by the Home Department over and above the fixed rent.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Parihar and Sanjeev Kumar observed that while the rental rates were fixed much earlier, the introduction of GST makes it mandatory for hoteliers to register under the Act and pay tax on the rental income.
[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs
Case Title: M/s R.K. Spat Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by either the Central or the State tax authorities, irrespective of taxpayer assignment, and such actions do not require a separate notification for cross-empowerment.
The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several companies challenging show cause notices issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Kaher Singh & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that obtaining registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, does not amount to authorisation to conduct a trade or business, nor can payment of tax legitimise an otherwise unlicensed commercial activity.
The High Court clarified that taxation statutes and regulatory licensing statutes operate in distinct spheres, and compliance with one cannot override mandatory licensing requirements under another.
Cause-Title: Kehar Singh Ors vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the 2017 Rules, ruling that the regulatory framework applies not only to manufacturers but also to brick dealers, rejecting challenges raised by multiple petitioners.
The High Court rejected the plea that GST registration obviated the licensing requirement under the Brick Kiln Act, stating, “GST registration pertains to fiscal compliance… the Brick Kiln Act is a regulatory statute aimed at environmental protection and land use control. Compliance with one statute does not dispense with mandatory requirements of another.”
GST Demand Cannot Exceed Amount Mentioned In Show Cause Notice: J&K&L High Court
Case Title: M/s Ukas Goods Carrier vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.
Case No.: WP (C) No. 1961/2021
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a tax demand under GST cannot exceed the amount mentioned in the show cause notice and that doing so violates basic principles of fairness.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar set aside a GST demand raised against a goods transport agency (GTA), after finding that the final demand was much higher than what was proposed in the original notice.
Case Title: TC Tours Limited v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 809/2024
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that once a GST appeal is filed electronically within the statutory period along with the uploaded order, there is no requirement to file a hard copy or certified copy of the order.
Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem stated that the appeal was filed online within statutory period along with the copy of order and therefore, there was no requirement of filing the hard copy of the same. Therefore, its rejection on the ground of not filing of the hard copy, is without any merit. This apart, the appeal cannot be rejected only on these procedural grounds without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/assessee.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Limra Traders v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P.(T) No. 6027 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court directed the state tax authorities to follow due procedure while passing adjudication orders.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated that “despite directions issued by the Court, it appears that State Tax authorities are continuing to conduct adjudication proceedings in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Satya Prakash Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 2096 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court stated that an advocate is not liable to verify fake documents provided by a client for registration of a firm to evade tax.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was dealing with a case where an advocate had moved a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered under sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 132 (1) (b)/131 (1) (e)/132 (1) (1) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST).
Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P.(T) No. 7098 of 2023
The Jharkhand High Court stated that retaining balance amount by department after the tax demand is reduced is violative of Article 14 & Article 265 of the constitution.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the department cannot retain the amounts deposited by the assessee pursuant to condition imposed by the appellate authority for stay of the assessment order and contend that there is no necessity to refund the same.
Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess
Case title: Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand
Case no.: W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.
The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.
Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and ors
Case no.: W.P. (T) No. 7091 of 2023
The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues.
The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.
Case Title: M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(T) No. 6208 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we are having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file its return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand, petitioner-Firm filed appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of almost 17 months which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.”
Case Title: M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand
Case no.: W.P.(T) No. 6527 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained neither by the State, nor by the Centre, that too by taking aid of a provision which on the face of it is directory, inasmuch as, the language couched in Section 54 is 'may make an application before the expiry of 2 years from the relevant date.'”
Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Stone Works v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P. (T) No. 5535 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court stated that sale of goods at concessional rates alone does not constitute a sham transaction.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that “notices under Section 61 have been issued to assessees and instead of pointing out discrepancies in the returns filed by assessees, the competent officer has embarked upon an exercise of comparing the price at which assessees have sold their stone-boulders/stone-chips with that of prevalent market price and, thereafter, accordingly, issued notices to assessees asking them to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings for recovery of tax and dues be not initiated against them.”
Case Title: M/s. Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition(T) No. 5009 Of 2025
The Jharkhand High Court held that once an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount, the Appellate Authority does not become functus officio and was competent to decide the appeal on merits if the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service Tax amount was subsequently complied with by the assessee.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar, stated that the appeal at the earlier occasion was dismissed solely on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to make the pre-requisite mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount before filing of the appeal and not on merits and this has been specifically noted in the order dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, once the appeal had not been decided on merits but had, in fact, not been entertained, there was no question of the Authority of having become “functus officio” after the deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount as alleged by the writ petitioner.
Case Title: Carbon Resources Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(T) No. 3532 of 2025 with W.P(T) No. 3825 of 2025
The High Court of Jharkhand has set aside GST refund rejection orders passed against Carbon Resources Private Limited, holding that the tax department violated mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice while rejecting the refund claim.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing two writ petitions challenging a refund rejection order and a subsequent rectification order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Giridih.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.18305 OF 2023 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that when investigation is substantially completed by improper officer, show cause notice issued by proper officer u/s 74 of CGST Act is liable to be set aside.
The Bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that “…substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no.2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the assessee herein has to be considered ab initio void…”
Case Title: The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited
Case Number: STRP NO.26 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court while laying down vital guidelines on Input Tax Credit stated that if the Assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings makes a claim for Input Tax Credit, the same cannot be disallowed only on the ground that the claim of the Assessee is disadvantageous to the State Exchequer.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and G. Basavaraja observed that ordinarily, the claim for Input Tax Credit has to be made in the Return or Revised Return only. A claim otherwise is an exception and bona fide of the same has to be demonstrated.
Case Title: B G Parmeshwara AND Bangalore Development Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.51001 OF 2019 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION No.7028 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the transaction of booking a residential house is entered into before the completion of construction and the consideration was paid (partly or fully) before issuance of completion certificate, the same would amount to supply of services requiring payment of the service tax (GST) by the purchaser.
Justice M G S Kamal recently dismissed a batch of petitions filed by B g Parmeshwara and others which had challenged the endorsement issued by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) calling upon the petitioners to pay amount towards the service Tax (GST) under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before registration of the apartment.
Case Title: M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court stated that inflating contract figures and complaining that tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, amounts to defrauding state.
“Claiming higher contract amount by inflated figures and thereafter complaining that the Tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, virtually amounts to defrauding the State, in two-ways. Such an assessee does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court,” stated the Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar.
Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court stated that value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable.
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
IGST Not Leviable On Secondment Of Employee From Overseas Group Companies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1779 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST is not leviable on secondment arrangement with overseas entities.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was addressing the issue of whether a secondment constitutes a taxable supply of manpower services or a non-taxable employer-employee relationship exempt under Schedule III of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Muni Naga Reddy HUF v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 12543 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST department to establish tracking system for notices sent to the taxpayers via email
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it is required for the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notices, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read.
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27926/2025
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to pass an ex-parte order staying the guideline dated September 9 issued by the Union of India mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).
Justice B M Shyam Prasad refused the ex parte interim order on the petition filed by Kitchen and Home Products Company, TTK Prestige Limited. The company has approached the court seeking to quash the guideline.
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
SARFAESI Charge Created Before GST Charge Takes Precedence Over It: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 103730 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that a SARFAESI charge created prior in time takes precedence over a GST Charge.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that if there is a conflict between the GST Act and the SARFAESI Act (or the RDB Act), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa.
Mens Rea Not Prerequisite For Imposing Penalty U/S 117 Of Customs Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 7 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court held that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind stated that a plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a requirement of mens rea into the provision would amount to rewriting the statute, which is impermissible. Since Section 117, in its plain language, does not indicate the necessity of mens rea. The contrary finding recorded by the CESTAT is incorrect and unsustainable.
Case Name: Gunnam Infra Projects Private Limited
Case No. : WP(C) No.611 of 2025
The Karnataka High Court holds that payments made by assessee through Form GST DRC-03 at the time of search or pursuant to an investigation cannot be treated as 'voluntary payments' when amount was not determined through any formal assessment or adjudication.
A Bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed deficiency memos issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Revenue) on two different dates rejecting refund sought by assessee. On this score, it was observed that “the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03” as a deficiency memo cannot be issued when a refund application is complete in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 27259 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Centre cannot retain wrongly paid IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) once the correct tax is paid to the State authorities.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that since the assessee had wrongly paid IGST and later paid the correct tax to the State GST, the Central government must refund IGST to the assessee.
Case Title: Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2023 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that the assessee's payment of Rs. 10 crores could not be treated as a voluntary payment under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act), as the DRC-03 shows 'NIL' entries for both interest and penalty. The bench observed that the 'NIL' entries clearly indicated that the payment was made by the assessee under coercion and under the threat of arrest.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that prior to the search and inspection conducted by the department, they did not issue any notice to the assessee nor were any proceedings to ascertain, adjudicate or determine the tax, interest and penalty payable by the assessee which indicates that there was no occasion for the assessee to pay the said sum voluntarily by way of self-ascertainment to the department, thereby indicating that the said amount was not paid voluntarily by the assessee.
GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court
Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court in a matter concerning non-uploading of Part-B of E-way Bill, has set aside the revisional order and restored the order of Appellate Authority which allowed release of seized vehicle and imposed a General Penalty of Rs. 25000.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22377 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court held that bona fide errors in GSTR-3B returns are rectifiable and cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST /CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed the department to accept the revised returns, noting that the Supreme Court has also directed the CBIC to re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors.
Case Title: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar stated that the assessee had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination; the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside Karnataka. Undisputedly, the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST or KGST.
Case Title: M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33081 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act.
The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under Section 74, the authority artificially extends limitation and bypasses mandatory statutory constraints and if such a course is permitted it clearly tantamounts to a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Authority for Advance Ruling
Case Number: WP 25497/2024
The Karnataka High Court directed the CBIC to clarify whether passenger transportation services under Uber's subscription model attract GST under Section 9(5) of the CGST Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar also directed the CBIC to place the matter before the GST Council, if required, and file a status report.
Case Title: M/s Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 10989 OF 2025
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) is not leviable on clinic observation studies for foreign recipients, as such services qualify as export of services with the recipient located outside India.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that having regard to the specific observations made in the 37th GST Council Meeting, whereby it was resolved to clarify the tax liability in GST liability in relation to foreign recipients for R & D services provided by Indian pharmaceutical companies, the impugned notification dated 30.09.2019 is clearly retrospective, being clarificatory and elucidatory in nature.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40450 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.
The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “…the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…”
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
Case : Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner
Case no.: W.P(C).NO.25724 OF 2024
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench. It endorsed the prima facie view expressed by the single bench (Justice P Gopinath) that notification was not necessary for cross-empowerement.
Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2300 OF 2015
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid.
“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.
Case Title: Centre C Edtech Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 1934 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that illegal cash seizure by GST Department and handing over to Income Tax Department is illegal under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jyasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. held that “Cash amount seized from the premises of the assessee cannot be retained either by the GST Department of the State or the Income Tax Department prior to a finalisation of respective proceedings initiated by them.”
Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
Case Number: W.A.NO.258 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.
“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu
Case Number: WA NO. 238 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23872 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 2129 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”
Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
Case Number: WA NO. 709 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.
“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 3 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.T.REV. NO.106 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report. The Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed,
“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”
Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WA NO. 2183 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. were addressing the issue of whether the customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.
Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India
Case no.: W.A.NO.1659 OF 2024
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.
As per the 2021 amendment made to the CGST Act, the definition of "supply" was amended to include within its fold "activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." Also, this amendment was given a retrospective effecf from 01.07.2017.
A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 4 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.
The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.
Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 14743 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal without any determination solely on the ground of non-appearance despite three adjournments.
Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16984 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts.
The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years.
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Case Number: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification…” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as 'foreign going vessel' for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country. On examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 9086 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit. The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 753 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that no right to reinstatement of customs broker license after breach of trust with customs department.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “…..the relationship between the Customs Department and the Customs Broker appointed in terms of the Regulations is essentially one of trust. Once that trust is broken, and the Customs Broker ceases to inspire the confidence of the Customs Department in relation to his functioning, he loses the right to seek a reinstatement of his license under the Regulations.”
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.46801 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 42612 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962 which outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18501 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Case Number: ICR (OT.REV) NO. 3 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
The bench opined that “the input tax credit can be legitimately availed by the purchasing dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even in cases where the selling dealer failed to remit the tax due to the government, provided that the purchasing dealer has strictly complied with all statutory requirements including possession of genuine tax invoices as required under the statute.”
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4274 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K.
Case Number: WA NO. 1543 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 12770 of 2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% relief under the 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020).
Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that the assessee's case is pending before the appellate authority, and the department wrongly considered the case of the assessee under Category 1 of Section 4(1) of the Ordinance, which deals with the amount related to the statutory certificate/declaration.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Department
Case Number: VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2019
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that White Petroleum Jelly is classified as a 'Drug', not 'Cosmetic', and therefore is not liable to higher VAT and Entry Tax.
Justices Vivek Rusia and Jai Kumar Pillai stated that a White Petroleum Jelly of IP grade manufactured and sold by appellant under a valid drug licence is liable to be classified as a category of drug and medicine under Entry 19-A of Part II, Schedule II of the MP VAT Act.
Case Title: Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40450 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.
The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “…the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…”
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
Case : Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner
Case no.: W.P(C).NO.25724 OF 2024
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench. It endorsed the prima facie view expressed by the single bench (Justice P Gopinath) that notification was not necessary for cross-empowerement.
Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2300 OF 2015
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid.
“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.
Case Title: Centre C Edtech Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 1934 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that illegal cash seizure by GST Department and handing over to Income Tax Department is illegal under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jyasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. held that “Cash amount seized from the premises of the assessee cannot be retained either by the GST Department of the State or the Income Tax Department prior to a finalisation of respective proceedings initiated by them.”
Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
Case Number: W.A.NO.258 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.
“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu
Case Number: WA NO. 238 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23872 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 2129 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”
Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
Case Number: WA NO. 709 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.
“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 3 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.T.REV. NO.106 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report. The Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed,
“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”
Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WA NO. 2183 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. were addressing the issue of whether the customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.
Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India
Case no.: W.A.NO.1659 OF 2024
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.
As per the 2021 amendment made to the CGST Act, the definition of "supply" was amended to include within its fold "activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." Also, this amendment was given a retrospective effecf from 01.07.2017.
A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 4 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.
The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.
Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 14743 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal without any determination solely on the ground of non-appearance despite three adjournments.
Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16984 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts.
The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years.
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Case Number: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification…” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as 'foreign going vessel' for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one month due to perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the issue pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country. On examination, it was found that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 9086 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit. The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 753 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that no right to reinstatement of customs broker license after breach of trust with customs department.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “…..the relationship between the Customs Department and the Customs Broker appointed in terms of the Regulations is essentially one of trust. Once that trust is broken, and the Customs Broker ceases to inspire the confidence of the Customs Department in relation to his functioning, he loses the right to seek a reinstatement of his license under the Regulations.”
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.46801 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 42612 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962 which outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18501 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Case Number: ICR (OT.REV) NO. 3 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
The bench opined that “the input tax credit can be legitimately availed by the purchasing dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even in cases where the selling dealer failed to remit the tax due to the government, provided that the purchasing dealer has strictly complied with all statutory requirements including possession of genuine tax invoices as required under the statute.”
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4274 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K.
Case Number: WA NO. 1543 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute.
Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO.32 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.
Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16709 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%. The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.
Case : Vinod Mukundan and others v. Union of India and others
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 36636/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has granted interim relief to retired employees of the Union Bank by allowing them to renew their group health insurance policies without paying the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the premium.
The Court passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Vinod Mukundan and others, including the All India Union Bank Pensioners & Retirees Federation, challenging the levy of 18% GST on group health insurance policies. While the GST levy on individual health insurance has been completely waived off with effect from September 22, group health insurance policies have not been exempted from GST. The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Case Title: Liyakhat Ali v. The Commissioner, State GST Department
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44655 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the GST Department to take action on alleged tax evasion involving frozen chicken being sold at 0% GST instead of the applicable 5%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. recorded that the petitioner, who is a chicken meat dealer, had highlighted serious allegations of tax evasion in sale of frozen chicken in Kerala.
Case Title: M/s Shree Contractor v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 37299 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that a contractor can claim increased GST (Goods and Services Tax) during work, even if bills were paid before the rate increase.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that at the time of execution of the contract, the rate was only 5% and the increase took place during the execution of the work. Thus, the assessee is entitled to a differential amount of tax.
Case Title: Saleena Shaul Hameed v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40341 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that a cancelled GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim the ITC (Input Tax Credit) benefit under Section 16(6) CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017).
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that Section 16(6) does not envisage a fresh cause of action in respect of the taxpayers, whose registration is cancelled, for getting the restoration of the registration, only for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 16(6).
Case Title: M/s Josco Fashion Jewellers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15898 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has held that under the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003), the assessing authority cannot cancel permission to pay tax at compounding rates for suppression in the same year it was opted, and only the suppressed turnover can be taxed at normal rates.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim opined that cancellation proceedings are still pending, and the cancellation is not carried out, and the assessment is not concluded on a best judgment assessment basis. In such a case, Section 25AA(5) is applicable, and the option of compounding shall not be cancelled, and the suppressed turnover alone shall be assessed at the scheduled rate applicable to the goods. In view of Section 25AA(5), the Notices proposing to cancel the permission to pay at a compounded rate are clearly unsustainable.
Case Title: M/s Ridha Polymers v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17324 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an affidavit by professionals, such as a cost accountant, given during a personal hearing, cannot be ignored, especially when a state tax officer admits facts referred therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that when a professional swears an affidavit before this Court, highlighting the matters that transpired during the course of the hearing, the same cannot be simply ignored, particularly in a situation where, to some extent, there is an admission forthcoming from the part of the State Tax Officer with regard to the matters referred to in the said affidavit. Therefore, the assessee can be granted one more opportunity to be heard.
Case Title: M/s K.V. Joshy & C.K. Paul v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24617 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that the department cannot proceed against a recipient for ITC mismatch without first initiating proceedings against the supplier.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the suppliers before the issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CSGT Act. This amounts to the failure on the part of the department in following the statutory stipulations contained in Section 42.
Case Title: M/s Escapade Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.18245 OF 2008
The Kerala High Court has held that an Ayurvedic Treatment centre is to be classified as a 'hospital' and not 'hotel', and therefore, luxury tax cannot be imposed.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the Ayurvedic Treatment Centre admits patients undergoing prescribed Ayurvedic treatment for a minimum duration, without offering hotel amenities, it qualifies as a hospital and luxury tax is not liable under the Luxury Tax Act.
Case Title: P.P. Paul v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 26259 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that payments made under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) are valid if they fall within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that SVLDRS proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and hence covered under Supreme Court's suo moto extension orders.
Case Title: P.T. Vincent v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 43431 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that once the plinth area of a building increases due to additional construction, a fresh building tax assessment must be carried out under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., after examining the documents produced by the assessee, stated that the assessee had carried out additional constructions after the initial construction, which was subjected to assessment under the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Case Title: M/S National Timbers v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15946 OF 2011
The Kerala High Court has held that a lower conversion factor is applicable for timber imports made before 11.05.2012.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined the issue regarding the refund of additional customs duty paid for the import of timber from Myanmar and other foreign countries.
Case Title: Sri. Shimwas Hussain v. The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 33519 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that the classification of 'Nata de Coco' is a factual matter that must be decided by the adjudicating authority through statutory proceedings and not by the writ court.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that since it is a statutory proceeding contemplated under Section 124 of the Act, which should be followed from the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act, the question as to be sustainability of the classification cannot be considered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This is because the adjudication of the dispute involved, being a factual aspect, it has to be examined by the competent authorities, and this Court cannot conduct a parallel enquiry in connection with the same.
Case Title: M/s T P Trading Company v. The Transport Commissioner (Kerala State)
Case Number: WA NO. 1403 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court upheld the motor vehicle tax demand on a car registered in Puducherry after finding no evidence that it was actually used there.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon noted that the NIL returns do not reflect any business being carried out by the assessee from Puducherry. The bench opined that the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the vehicle was not being used in Kerala to attract tax.
Case Title: James Varghese v. Pala Municipality
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 44912 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that under Section 509(11) of the Municipality Act, only the tax component shown in the demand notice is required to be paid for filing an appeal. The bench clarified that the Municipality cannot insist on payment of penal interest or any other additional charges for entertaining the appeal.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. opined that the obligation of the assessee while submitting an appeal is only to make the payment of the tax component in the demand and nothing more. As far as the penal interest and other charges are concerned, the same can be enforced by invoking the appropriate proceedings, subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Pazhassi Motors v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 45451 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), being a non-obstante provision, overrides the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) once returns are filed within the cut-off date specified therein.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated, Section 16(5) starts with the wording “notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection 4.” This would indicate that, once the taxpayer submits the return within the period stipulated in Section 16(5), the time limit contemplated under Section 16(4) of the CGST loses its significance.
Case Title: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Subair Kallungal Town Apartment
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act cannot form the basis for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B are complied with.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon opined that Section 138B is essentially in the form of a procedural safeguard regarding the admission of statements under Section 108 in evidence. When the safeguards under Section 138B have not been complied with, no question of proceeding under the provisions of the statute arises.
Levy Of Service Tax On 'Access To Amusement Facilities' Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Vengad Resorts & Retreats Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1106 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court held that the levy of service tax on 'access to amusement facilities' is unconstitutional, as the entire activity squarely falls within the State's taxing power under Entry 62 of List II (entertainments and amusements) of the Constitution of India.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act also seek to impose tax on the entire consideration received by the assessee from their clients/customers. The question of the Union imposing tax on the very same transaction in such a scenario would be unconstitutional.
Case Title: M/s Taj Garden Retreat v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 2110 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that even though Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) does not prescribe any limitation period, penalty proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since the notice was issued with reference to the assessment year 2011-12, the period of five years had come to an end on 31.03.2017. The notice was issued admittedly only on 20.12.2018. The above notice is beyond the reasonable period of time of five years, under such circumstances.
Case Title: M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 1745 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court granted relief to Bharti Airtel by holding that SIM cards, recharge coupons, fixed monthly charges and telecom value-added services cannot be treated as 'goods' under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on which any tax can be levied.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian addressed a case filed by Bharti Airtel, the assessee, challenging the assessing order both on grounds of limitation and on merits, seeking to clarify that SIM cards, rechargeable coupons, fixed monthly charges and value-added services (towards SMS, ringtones, download music, etc.) do not constitute 'goods' under the KVAT Act.
Madhya Pradesh HC
MP High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Tobacco Company For Stalling GST Proceedings
Case Title: Elora Tobacco Company v Union of India
Case no.: WP-14694-2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed ₹2 lakh costs on an Indore-based tobacco company for attempting to stall the proceedings initiated against it by the GST authorities.
The company came came under the scanner of the Director General of GST Intelligence back in May 2020, following an investigation into large-scale tax evasion in the pan masala and tobacco industry in Indore.
Case Name: Ojas Construction through its Partner Rachna Pathak vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 39844 of 2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed writ petition by a builder seeking reimbursement or refund of differential 6% GST on account of increase in rate (from 12% to 18%) on government works contract w.e.f. July 18, 2022.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the 47th GST Council Meeting which approved suggestions of the Group of Ministers on Rate Rationalization, increased GST rate (from 12% to 18%) on works contract was notified vide Notification No. 03/2022 Central Tax (rate) dated July 13, 2022 (Rate Notification). CBIC vide Circular No. 177/09/2022-TRU dated August 03, 2022 clarified certain issues for implementation relating to GST rates on works contract services.
Case Detail: Amara Raja Batteries Limited vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a matter where Invoices and Consignment Note mentioned the correct destination address, but E-way Bill mentioned another address, has dismissed the writ petition.
In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal emphasized on how during transportation of the goods 'no steps' were taken to correct the mistake in E-way Bill. This indicated mens rea, the High Court opined.
Madras HC
What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies
Case Title: Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.26481
The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when the Statute had also mandated issuance of notice in person/ registered post/ e-mail, etc., the Rules cannot be limited to only serving it through electronic modes.”
GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.28502 of 2022
The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”
Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.
The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.
Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.3995 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit.
“The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.
Case Title: M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II)
Case No: W.P.No.14080 of 2021
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the supply of holographic stickers or excise labels by the Prohibition and Excise Department which is to be affixed on manufactured and bottles alcoholic liquor is a supply of “goods” simplicitor and not a supply of “service”.
The court thus ruled that such supply of holographic stickers would not be taxable under the GST enactments. Justice C Saravanan noted that the holographic sticker was a label and therefore a good within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act and the supply of label by the department had to be construed as a supply of “goods” and not a supply of “service”.
Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: W.P.Nos.6524, 6527, 6531, 6537 and 6541 of 2022
Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.
The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD). Nos. 3938 to 3942 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Case Number: W.A.(MD). Nos. 557 to 568 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee.
Case Title: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.Nos.28380 & 28388 of 2018
The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments.
“The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty” stated the bench comprising of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P. Nos.33562
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act. The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved.
“Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal,” stated the bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.1114 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved. The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.”
Case Title: Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu
Case Number: W.A.No.474 of 2021
The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State taxation. The States are free to levy taxes on goods imported into the State.
Case Title: Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.Nos.31572
The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favour of the Financial Institution, as Section 34 of the RDB Act is, by comparison, only a general provision.”
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: C.M.A. Nos.71 & 131 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number: W.A(MD) No.1821 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10304 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing. The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: W.P.No.30638 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P.No.33265 of 2007
The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.
Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai
Case Number: C.M.A.No.2553 of 2025
The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court
Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No. 19651 of 2007
The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10th June 1987 and exempted from tax.
What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies
Case Title: Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham v. The Authority
Case Number: W.P.(MD)Nos.26481
The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when the Statute had also mandated issuance of notice in person/ registered post/ e-mail, etc., the Rules cannot be limited to only serving it through electronic modes.”
GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), Coimbatore
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.28502 of 2022
The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.
The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”
Case Title: Thanushika v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Chennai)
Case No: W.P.No.5005 of 2024
The Madras High Court has recently criticised a Seizing Officer attached to the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs for seizing a gold “Mangalya Thali Kodi” (necklace) from a Srilankan citizen alleging that the same was against the Baggage Rules 2016.
The court observed that the quantity of jewellery worn by the petitioner was normal for a newly married person and that the officers, while conducting searches should respect the customs of every religion in the country. The court also noted that it was unfair on the part of the officer to remove the petitioner's thali and such act was intolerable.
Case Title: Tvl. Chennais Pet v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.3995 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that appeal can't be dismissed due to procedural delay, when assessee has complied statutory requirements including pre-deposit.
“The appeal should not be dismissed merely due to a procedural delay, especially when the petitioner has made an effort to comply with the statutory requirements, including the pre-deposit of 10% of the tax liability and additional payments towards the disputed tax amount” stated the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.
Case Title: M/s.United Breweries Limited v. The Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals II)
Case No: W.P.No.14080 of 2021
The Madras High Court has recently observed that the supply of holographic stickers or excise labels by the Prohibition and Excise Department which is to be affixed on manufactured and bottles alcoholic liquor is a supply of “goods” simplicitor and not a supply of “service”.
The court thus ruled that such supply of holographic stickers would not be taxable under the GST enactments. Justice C Saravanan noted that the holographic sticker was a label and therefore a good within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act and the supply of label by the department had to be construed as a supply of “goods” and not a supply of “service”.
Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: W.P.Nos.6524, 6527, 6531, 6537 and 6541 of 2022
Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.
The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD). Nos. 3938 to 3942 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Case Number: W.A.(MD). Nos. 557 to 568 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee.
Case Title: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.Nos.28380 & 28388 of 2018
The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments.
“The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty” stated the bench comprising of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P. Nos.33562
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act. The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved.
“Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal,” stated the bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.1114 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved. The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.”
Case Title: Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu
Case Number: W.A.No.474 of 2021
The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State taxation. The States are free to levy taxes on goods imported into the State.
Case Title: Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.Nos.31572
The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favour of the Financial Institution, as Section 34 of the RDB Act is, by comparison, only a general provision.”
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: C.M.A. Nos.71 & 131 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number: W.A(MD) No.1821 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10304 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing. The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: W.P.No.30638 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P.No.33265 of 2007
The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.
Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai
Case Number: C.M.A.No.2553 of 2025
The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court
Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No. 19651 of 2007
The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10th June 1987 and exempted from tax.
Case Title: P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
Case Number: W.A.Nos.12 and 57 of 2023
The Madras High Court stated that the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) penalty under Section 50 is not applicable for export shortfall below 10%; the exporter can write off unrealised bills.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that even otherwise, since Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to be read along with Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly the Appellants/Exporters had failed to realize approximately 5.45% of the export proceeds.
Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.4416 of 2022
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.
The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17."
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
Case Title: National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP No. 11222 of 2022
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act. "It is not known as to where the 1st respondent gets the power and jurisdiction to issue a Public Notice directing the custodians not to collect GST. This direction given by the 1st respondent certainly does not fall within the domain of the customs authorities."
TNGST Act | Purchase Tax Cannot Be Levied on Buyer for Seller's Tax Default: Madras High Court
Case Title: Light Roofings Ltd. v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P. Nos.19625
The Madras High Court on Monday held that purchase tax cannot be levied under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act) on the purchaser merely because the seller failed to pay tax.
The bench, comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, clarified the scope of Section 7A in transactions where the vendor has defaulted on tax payments. "Having found that the sale to petitioner is liable to tax in the hands of the petitioner's vendor, levy of purchase tax only on the premise that petitioner's vendor had not remitted tax cannot be sustained. If petitioner's vendor fails to remit appropriate tax, Revenue ought to proceed against the petitioner's vendor, instead any levy of purchase tax by the respondent would be bad for want of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained", it said.
Case Title: M Divya vs The Senior Revenue Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.10194 of 2025
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that hostels providing accommodation to working men and women are residential properties and, therefore, property tax, water tax, and electricity charges cannot be levied at commercial rates.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by hostel owners in Chennai and Coimbatore challenging Chennai municipal authorities and the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) for reclassifying their hostels from residential to commercial premises and demanding significantly higher taxes.
Case Title: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(MD)Nos.30453
The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of difference between specifying something and determining something. The word “determined” found in the show cause notice cannot be construed as “specified”.
Case Title: M/s. Parry Enterprises India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P.Nos.17912 of 2023
The Madras High Court has held that once CESTAT has classified wheat gluten as eligible for DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) exemption, Customs authorities are bound by those findings and cannot independently deny the exemption benefits.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that Wheat Gluten is not covered under the DFIA Licence and, therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption. If the CESTAT has already taken a view that Wheat flour and Wheat Gluten fall under the same classification, the entire proceedings of the respondent cannot be sustained, since all the other findings hinge upon only this issue.
Case Name: MRF Limited vs. Additional Director, DGGI
The Madras High Court has quashed Show Cause Notices issued to Apollo Tyres Limited and MRF Limited alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the composite supply of Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (TFF) since tax difference was paid voluntarily.
In twin judgments dated November 28,2025, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy examined if Show Cause Notice had fulfilled the ingredients of Section 74 to hold that payment deferred due to confusion prevailing confusion in the industry regarding tax treatment of TFF is not attributable to tax evasion.
Orissa HC
Lawyers Running Individual Practice Exempt From Levy Of GST, Service Tax: Orissa High Court
Case title: Shivananda Ray v. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. Bhubaneswar and Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.6592 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has reminded the GST and Service tax authorities not to harass practicing lawyers by issuing them notices for levy of GST or service tax. A Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice BP Routray thus quashed the notices issued to a Bhubaneswar based lawyer demanding service tax of Rs.2,14,600/- and penalty of Rs.2,34,600/- plus interest.
It observed, “in view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer…the Department the Petitioner is exempted from levy of service tax for such income he derived from his legal service as a Lawyer.”
Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.15220 of 2025
The Orissa High Court held that the reconstituted GSTAT (Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal) selection committee has the authority to restart the entire appointment process.
“…….Mere offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible or inchoate right into the appointment. Even a person, whose name is included in the select list, cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to appoint a person to a post subject to the fulfillment of the various criteria envisaged in the statutory provisions” opined the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman.
Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited v. State of Odisha
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 12443 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section 41 after the expiry of the limitation period.
Case Detail: M/s. ESL Steel Limited v. Union of India & others
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.34653 of 2025
The Orissa High Court on Thursday, in a plea by ESL Steel concerning the levy of GST on assignment of right to use natural resources as well as statutory charged paid on stamp duty, registration fees, payments for Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF), etc, has granted interim stay against GST demand of INR 512 Crores (plus interest and penalty).
The Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman were hearing the writ petition filed by ESL Steel whereby Advocates Bharat Raichandanit along with Advocates Sudipta Bhattacharjee, Onkar Sharma, Rishabh Prasad and Shrestha Khatri (from Khaitan & Co.) assailed the legality of the notice since the same was a consolidated one, bunching multiple financial years into single demand notice. They urged the Bench to consider that the notice had consolidated multiple financial years and was self‑contradictory. Thus, referring to its own decision in Vedanta Limited on bunching of notices, the Orissa High Court prima facie found grounds to grant an interim stay.
Case Title: Abhijit Nayak v. The Commissioner of (CT & GST), Odisha and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.32643 of 2025
The Orissa High Court held that while a writ petition may be entertained when the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is not constituted or functional, such non-availability cannot be used to bypass the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman stated that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 23907 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Acts for the period April 2020 to March 2021, which was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The principal contention was that although a second appeal lay under Section 112 of the GST Act, the GSTAT had not been constituted earlier, rendering the petitioner without remedy.
Case Detail: Subrat Rout vs. The Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.), Odisha and others
The Orissa High Court in a matter involving 'mistaken identity' where one individual was assessed despite having a cancelled registration number (GSTIN), has quashed Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted the 'mistaken fact' in Section 73 adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that Section 73 was invoked on the premise there was an alleged mismatch in figures disclosed by 'Subrat Rout' instead of a 'Subrat Kumar Rout' in the returns vis-à-vis receipt of amount towards works contract, pertaining to the tax period December 2018.
Case Title: M/s. Simon India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 33058 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has held that a GST interest and penalty waiver application filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected merely because a portion of tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) was initially discharged through input tax credit, subsequently pays the amount in cash and complies with legal requirements.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman heard the writ petition filed by Simon India Ltd., a company engaged in execution of works contracts, challenging the rejection of its application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in relation to GST demands raised for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
Case Name: Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise & Ors.
The Orissa High Court in a matter concerning, Double Jeopardy on Refund of about Rs. 14 crores where recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 73 for Refund already sanctioned by the Appellate Authority, has quashed the Show Cause Notice for recovery.
In a recent judgment, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, observed that by initiating recovery the Joint Commissioner sought to revive a Review Order differing with the findings of the Appellate Authority. It thus 'overstepped' its jurisdiction and so the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice could not override a quasi-judicial decision of the Appellate Authority.
Case Title: M/s. Ayushi Galvano v. Commissioner (Audit), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Audit Commissionerate and others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.30871 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has stayed further proceedings arising from a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand-cum-show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after finding a prima facie jurisdictional defect in the audit process that formed the basis of the demand.
The interim order was passed in a writ petition which challenged an audit notice and a consequential demand-cum-show cause. The demand was issued following an audit report communicated during audit proceedings conducted under Section 65 of the GST Act.
Patna HC
Case Title: M/s JMD Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15940 of 2023
The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017.
The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods during the transitional period may be found in Section 140 of the CGST Act. While this provision enables an assessee to carry forward and take credit of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on inputs as well as on capital goods, in the manner as may be prescribed and subject to the conditions contained in the provisions, sub-section (5) of Section 140 makes a distinction between the capital goods and inputs. This provides that a registered person would be entitled to take credit of eligible duties and taxes in respect of inputs or input services received on or after the appointed date but the duty on tax in respect of which has been paid by the supplier under the existing law…”
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and Others
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9105 of 2024
The Patna High Court has recently quashed a service tax demand raised against a government contractor, ruling that merely not registering for service tax could not be equated with fraud or suppression of facts warranting the application of the five-year extended limitation period under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed, “the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had not taken registration of the service tax would alone not be a reason to believe that he has committed a fraud or has wilfully suppressed his liability to pay the tax. Rule 4A casts a duty upon every person providing taxable service (not later than thirty days from the date of completion of such taxable service whichever is earlier to issue an invoice, a bill or as the case may be a challan signed by such person or a person authorised by him in respect of such taxable service provided or agreed to be provided.”
Customs Act Grants Unfettered Investigative Powers Where Infraction Is Suspected: Patna High Court
Case Title: Bishal Roadways Versus UOI
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6201 of 2020
The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides 'unfettered power' to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, observed, “The investigation cannot be nipped in the bud and be prevented simply on the basis of certain technicalities. The Customs Act provides unfettered power to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of the provision of the Customs Act.”
Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Food Grain and Iron Stors vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13674 of 2024
The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition challenging a tax demand of ₹88,64,550.50, has observed that an inspection conducted under the BGST/CGST regime is legally unsustainable if not carried out in compliance with Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, stated, “Section 67 of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 specifically mandates an inspection to be conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that there shall be two witnesses when the inspection is conducted… The inspection report, therefore, does not contain the names and signatures of two independent witnesses which is the mandatory requirement of Section 67 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017… Clearly this appears to be an afterthought done with the motive to simply cover-up the lacuna…”
Case Title: CTS Industries Limited vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No. Case No.1898 of 2023
The Patna High Court has upheld a tax assessment order passed by the State GST Authority, clarifying that once a Proper Officer determines that input tax credit has been wrongfully availed or utilized due to fraud or suppression of facts, they are empowered to issue a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held, “According to sub-section (1), wherever it appears to the Proper Officer that there is any wrongful availment of input tax credit or where the input tax credit has been utilized by reason of fraud or any willful statement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made or who has wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with the interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.”
Case Title: Siddartha Travels v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13297 of 2024
The Patna High Court has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹25.25 lakh against a travel agency, dismissing its defence that crucial business records had been lost in a fire. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed,
“this petitioner having surrendered his service tax registration had not disclosed the transactions in ST-3. The Taxing Authority were not aware of this, they were looking for cooperation on the part of the petitioner, they called for relevant information and records during investigation but the petitioner did not provide those information to the Taxing Authority. In such circumstance, if the Taxing Authority has taken a view that it is a case of suppression and the facts which have surfaced during investigation were not earlier known to them and they would not have come to know it if the investigation would not have taken place, cannot be found fault with.”
Assessee Is Permitted To Rectify GSTR 3B On Par With Contents Of GSTR 1: Patna High Court
Case Title: Om Traders v. Union Of India
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16509 of 2024
The Patna High Court stated that the assessee is permitted to rectify GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR 1.
The Division Bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. PD. Singh observed that in the government, there is no system of rectification of any return once it is filed. However, the assessee had submitted application to rectify GST 3B on par with the GSTR 1 relating to certain total taxable value, total integrated tax, total CGST, total SGST. He had committed error insofar as mentioning total taxable value while submitting GSTR 3B and it is not in accordance with the GSTR 1.
Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Sai Steel v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13163 of 2024
The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax under IGST Act.
Case title: M/S ACC Limited v. State of Bihar
Case no.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2023
In a ruling on sales tax valuation under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Patna High Court has held that packing materials used for cement, such as gunny bags and HDPE bags, form an integral part of cement sales and cannot be subjected to separate tax rates distinct from the cement itself.
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman dismissed a batch of miscellaneous appeals filed by ACC Limited. The appeals pertained to multiple assessment years ranging from 1996-97 to 2000-01.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Case Number: CWP-9172-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that failure to notify commissioner of partner's retirement makes former partner liable for firm's GST. Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017 extends the liability in case of partnership firm to its partners as well.
Justices Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma stated that “intimation of retirement of partner has to be given to the Commissioner by notice in writing and that in case, no such intimation is given within one month from the date of retirement, liability of such partner under first proviso shall continue until the date on which such intimation is received by the Commissioner.”
Case Name: Shyam Sunder Strips & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.
Case No. : CWP 23675 of 2025
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed orders that disallowed debit from Electronic Credit Ledgers of taxpayers in excess of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) available at the time of passing of the said order.
The Division Bench comprising, Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta followed the principles judicial reasoning for blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86-A as enumerated by Gujarat High Court in case of Samay Alloys and thereafter by Delhi High Court in case of Best Corp Science, Kings Security Guard Services, Karuna Rajendra Ringshia as well as Telangana High Court in Laxmi Fine Chem.
Case Title: Arun Garg v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRM-M-25342-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that even in cases involving economic offences under the CGST Act, courts must not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney stated that even in cases involving economic offences, the Court seized of the matter has to go through the gravity of the offence, the object of the Act, the attending circumstances, etc. Thus, economic offences cannot be categorised in one group, and the Court should not proceed on the presumption that “Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception”.
Case Title: M/s Himalaya Optical Centre Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Punjab
Case Number: VATAP-38-2013 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the sunglasses are classified as a residuary item, as they did not fall under any specified Schedule, and therefore are exigible to VAT (Value Added Tax) at the rate of 12.50%.
Justices Lisa Gill and Meenakshi I. Mehta stated that sunglasses are indeed a distinct commodity, which is not covered under Entry 110 of Schedule B of PVAT Act and Entry 100-E Schedule-C of HVAT Act.
Case Title: M/s Garg Furnance Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: CWP-31754-2025
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that tax authorities cannot block a taxpayer's Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) beyond the Input Tax Credit (ITC) actually available at the time of action, and that creating a negative ITC balance under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 is without jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Parmod Goyal was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Garg Furnace Limited, which challenged the blocking of its ECL on 01.10.2025 resulting in a negative ITC balance, allegedly without notice and in violation of Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the challenge made to an amendment brought in by the Transport Department by which a new category of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motor vehicle tax, taking it out from the previous category without qualifying it for the exemptions available under other categories.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell in the definitions under Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and once the type or class of vehicle was categorised further based on seating capacity/berth arrangement as per body types defined under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was within its right to categorize such vehicle for tax imposition.
Title: IDP Education Indian Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions
While hearing a petition against the decision of Department of Revenue by a company providing services to a foreign entity, Rajasthan High Court held that for someone to be called an “intermediary”, there had be existence of 3 parties in the contract, in the absence of which, the services rendered under a bipartite agreement could not be called “intermediary”.
The division bench of Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing the petition filed by a subsidiary of IDP Australia, a foreign entity assisting students with their enrolment with foreign universities.
Title: M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.
Case Title: Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union Of India
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2932/2023
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed Point No. 2 of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, restricting ITC claims on the inverted duty structure prior to 18.07.2022.
The bench, consisting of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Sangeeta Sharma, stated that if the impugned clarification is tested on the anvil of reasonableness, it falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the right to claim refund of Input Tax Credit of the input tax on inverted duty structure has been denied with effect from 18.07.2022 only.
Voluntary GST Cancellation Not Grounds To Freeze Company's Bank Account: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Bhilwara Trading Company v Bank Of Baroda
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bank of Baroda to de-freeze the account of the petitioner-company, allowing it to use it freely till finally deciding the company's representation, observing that the bank could not freeze the account merely because the company's GST registration was voluntarily cancelled.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a petition filed by a company trading in goods which were exempted from the Goods and Services Tax, whose application for voluntary cancellation of GST registration was allowed by the concerned department.
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1947/2025
The Rajasthan High Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether arrest warrants can be converted to bailable warrants in serious economic offences under the provisions of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Customs, CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax), as well as heinous offences punishable under Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that, “creation of fake/non-existing Firms with an intent to pass on fake ITC on the basis of alleged supply shown in fake invoices and thereby passing on fake ITC to various beneficiaries and thus evading tax in crores of rupees, which affects the economy of the nation, and the same would certainly fall within the purview of grave economic offences.”
Case Title: Manoj Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13655/2025
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail application of the applicants accused of facilitating large-scale GST evasion through online gaming transactions.
Justice Sameer Jain stated that bail should normally be granted for offences under section 132 of the CGST Act, unless extraordinary circumstances exist, and in the matter at hand, there is GST evasion of approximately Rs. 95 Crores, which shall have writ large effects on the economy of the country.
Case Detail: Akash Construction vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court, in a matter concerning effective service of appellate order and consideration of condonation of delay application, has set aside order passed by the Appellate Authority.
In a recent judgment a Division Bench comprising, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit on dismissal of appeal on account of limitation, emphasized that condonation of delay application must be judiciously considered. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition while upholding the legal principle of deemed service through the GST portal as a valid communication.
Sikkim HC
Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized ITC Claimed On Closure Of Business: Sikkim High Court
Case Title: SICPA India Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No.54 of 2023
The Sikkim High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed on the closure of business.
The Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was addressing the issue of whether the refund of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act is only limited to companies carved out under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act or does every registered company have a right to refund of ITC in case of discontinuance of business.
Case Title: Union of India v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: W.A. No. 02 of 2025
The Sikkim High Court stated that no refund of unutilised ITC (Input Tax Credit) on closure of business under section 54 CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax), must be reversed under section 29(5).
Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan stated that the accumulated credit on closure of business must be reversed under section 29(5) and no refund can be granted under section 49(6) and section 54 of the CGST Act and the relevant rules.
Telangana HC
Case title: M/s.Brunda Infra Pvt. Limited and Others. vs. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax
Case no.: WRIT PETITION Nos.1154 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of a 2023 notification, issued by the GST Department post COVID-19 pandemic, for extending the limitation period prescribed for issuing notices under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani also upheld a notification issued in 2022 for similar purpose. In doing so, it observed,
“In the manner statute i.e., Section 168A is worded, there is no cavil of doubt that the Law makers intended to give it a broader umbrella to bring within its shadow, such actions which could not be completed or complied with, due to force majeure…The COVID-19 Pandemic created extraordinary difficulties which could not have been anticipated, measured and solved with mathematical precision. Thus, hair-splitting in many aspects must be eschewed…While dealing with such an extraordinary crisis, Government's action must be viewed in a broad perspective.”
Case title: M/s Diwakar Road Lines vs. The Union Of India and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO: 19920/2020
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Diwakar Road Lines challenging the rejection of an application to compound all previous service tax by way of a one-time settlement.
The bench held that even though the statute does not prescribe for the rejection of any application, the committee may reject an application when the documents relied upon are ingenuine.
Case Title: M/s Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The State of Telangana and others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 21101 of 2024
The Telangana High Court stated that the show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed that “since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”
Case title: M/s. Andhra Fuels Private Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No: TAX REVISION CASES NOS.1, 3 AND 7 OF 2008
In a case pertaining to the taxation of Natural Gas, the Telangana High Court has held that Natural Gas shall fall under Entry 23 of 6th Schedule, under the category of petroleum gases, and not Entry 118. The different entries change the percentage of tax levied.
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that “This bench is of the firm opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the natural gas sold by the petitioner falls under entry 23 of 6th schedule is proper”.
Tripura HC
Case Title: R.G. Group vs. UOI & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No.611 of 2025
The Tripura High Court recently held that payment of a penalty under economic duress cannot be treated as a “voluntary” admission of liability, and tax authorities remain legally obligated to pass a final, reasoned order under the Tripura State GST Act, 2017.
The ruling came in the case of R G Group, a Tripura-based supplier of electrical goods, whose consignment was detained in July 2024 by GST enforcement officials over alleged expired E-Way bills and vehicle discrepancies.
Case Title: M/s North East Carrying Corporation Ltd.(NECC) Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 36-37 of 2025
The Tripura High Court has held that where show-cause notices imposing penalty under Section 77 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act) were issued after delay of 9 years, long after the repeal of the TVAT Act after GST Regime, are arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by malafides. The Court further held that the State cannot retain the security deposit taken for VAT registration once the GST regime does not mandate a security deposit for transporters.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing writ petitions filed by the assessee, challenging multiple show-cause notices and penalty orders issued under Section 77 of the repealed TVAT Act, along with the non-refund of the Rs.12 Lacs. security deposit originally deposited in 2013 at the time of VAT registration.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Kotdwar Steel Limited v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner Kotdwar
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 47 Of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken.
“The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra.
Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Union of India and Another
Case Number: Writ Petition (MB) No. 103 of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court stated that orders passed under omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 post 8th Oct, 2024 is not valid.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra stated that there was no scope for the department to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding.
Case Title: Atlanta Tele Cables vs The Deputy Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition (M/B) No.991 of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time.
The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in the hearing or produce records.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: TC Global India Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, DGCEI, New Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51355 of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on commission received from foreign universities for promoting and publicizing business in India.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee is held not liable to pay service tax with reference to foreign Consultancy Income i.e. the income received from foreign universities for promoting and publicizing their business in India.”
Case title: M/s. Samudera Shipping Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case no.: Customs Appeal No. 75641 of 2021
Stating that goods wrongly loaded by the steamer agent could not have been exported without clearance by the Customs officials themselves, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Noting that the goods had been successfully exported and remittance against it had been received, the bench comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan said the same could not have been possible without clearance by the Customs Department. Thus, the penalty imposed on Appellant would be bad in law.
Excise Duty Not Payable On 'Bagasse' Which Emerges As A Waste Product During Sugar Crushing: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 40479 to 40482 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty is not payable on the Bagasse emerged as waste product during sugar crushing.
The Bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) has observed that Bagasse emerged only as a waste product during crushing of sugarcane during the manufacturing process and though marketable, duty could not be imposed on it as there was no manufacturing activity involved.
Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.40501 of 2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that investigation report is not an appealable order and there is no statutory right for a hearing at the stage of preparation of investigation report.
The Bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee has also not demonstrated any real prejudice caused to them by the investigation report. Merely being disappointed or dissatisfied is not enough”.
Seized Gold Cannot Be Confiscated Just For Having An Invalid Letter Of Approval: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Encee International NSEZ v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70692 of 2019
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that seized gold cannot be confiscated just for having an invalid letter of approval.
There was a difference in the opinion between the P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) on the issues involved in the case. Therefore, the matter was place before third member ie. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) for determination of the same.
Case Title: M/s. Wellworth Project Developers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commissioner of CGST
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50259 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation merely because the returns were self-assessed.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Mere suppression of facts is not enough to invoke the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. The suppression has to be with an intent to evade payment of service tax and for this purpose the show cause notice must specifically allege why the asseessee has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax.”
Case Title: Deepak Pandey v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Appeal No. 52346 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the prescribed time limit for filing a refund application cannot be disregarded merely because the tax was collected without legal authority.
The Bench of Justices Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that “the appellant cannot be permitted to claim a refund of service tax under sub-section (1) of section 102 and at the same time contend that the condition stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act should be ignored.”
Case Title: Executive Engineer (Workshop) M.P. Power Appellant Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Customs & CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50329 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted a refund along with interest, despite the absence of a statutory provision for interest under central excise laws at the relevant time.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the amount collected by way of Central excise duty was illegal as the activity itself did not involve any manufacture and the same cannot be allowed to be retained by the Government.”
Case Title: M/s Secure Meters Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51041 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported communication modules function independently as parts of communication hubs, classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) have observed that “since the communication modules were imported, they should be classified as such. The correct classification of the communication modules is CTI 8517 70 90.”
Case Title: Rallis India Limited v. C.C.E-Bharuch
Case Number: Service Appeal No 11894 of 2016 - SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought.
The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. The department cannot be expected to consider refund claim if it is not indicated to them as to under which notification and provisions same has been sought.”
Case Title: M/s Indus Towers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60744 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency of an appeal amounts to coercive recovery.
The amount adjusted from the total refund sanctioned to the assessee is refundable to the assessee at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date of its refund, stated the bench.
Two Or More Bills Of Entry Or Shipping Bills Cannot Be Taken Together And Assessed: CESTAT
Case Title: M/S Disha Realcon Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner of Customs Adjudication
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54710 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that two or more bills of entry or shipping bills cannot be taken together and assessed.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Two or more Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills cannot be taken together and assessed. The only exception made in the law are the Project Imports under Project Import Regulations, 1986.”
Transaction Value Is Not The Only Basis For Assessment Of Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Mittal Appliances Limited V. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51888 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty. The Valuation Rules and Section 14 of the Act provide for rejection of transaction value. When rejecting the transaction value, the customs officer does not modify the transaction value but only rejects it as the assessable value for determination of the duty.”
Case Title: M/s. Aglowmed Ltd. V. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax, Dehradun
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51902 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere wrong availment of exemption notification does not mean that availment was done to evade payment of central excise duty.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Mere wrong availment of an Exemption Notification would not lead to a conclusion that it was with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty unless the department is able to not only allege but substantiate that the said suppression was deliberate with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty.”
Case Title: M/s Prestige Polymers Pvt. Ltd. V. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51470 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that if goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area, duty has to be paid.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “if goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area, duty has to be paid. If duty is not paid or short paid and as a result a demand has to be raised, it must be done as per the Customs Act by the jurisdictional Customs Officers.”
Case Title: Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.50780 Of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Customs authorities cannot deny the benefit of Customs duty exemption under the notifications governing the Advance Licensing Scheme.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the goods imported by the assessee under AAs are permitted for duty free import under Advance Authorization Scheme.
Obligation Under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Cannot Be Transferred To Recipient Of Credit: CESTAT
Case Title: Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd V. The Commissioner of CGST & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 85225 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the obligation under rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be transferred to the recipient of credit under rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bench of C J Mathew (Technical) has observed that, “the mechanism provided in rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, governing the distribution of such credit, deems the credit so distributed to be eligible credit for the purpose of utilization. A harmonious reading of rule 3 and 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the conditions prescribed in rule 7 alone would determine the extent of validity of the credit so distributed within the scheme of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.”
Assessee Not Eligible To Avail CENVAT Credit On Invoices Not In Their Name: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Leel Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50277 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is not eligible to avail the CENVAT Credit on the basis of the invoices which were not in their name.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “it is necessary that the document contains all particulars as mentioned therein to avail the credit. The name of the consignee or service receiver on the invoice is the basic requirement for availing the CENVAT Credit.”
Case Title: M/s. Assam Gas Company Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75603 of 2015
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the reimbursements received by the assessee cannot be considered as 'consideration' towards any taxable service.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (President) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical) has observed that, “the service rendered by the appellant is not for any other company but to themselves. Thus, there is no service provider and service receiver relationship exists in the transaction.”
Service Tax Liability Can't Be Levied On Freight And Cartage Expenses Under GTA Services: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax - Delhi III V. M/s. Globe Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54328 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax liability cannot be levied on freight and cartage expenses under GTA (Good Transport Agency) services.
“The said amount/expenses/charges were not paid by the assessee directly to the transporter for transportation of any goods. Thus, the said activity cannot be covered under GTA Services, hence, no service tax liability can be levied on the aforesaid amount/expenses/charges under GTA services” stated the bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical).
Legal & Consultancy Services Under RCM Is Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Saisun Outsourcing Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax, Jabalpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54991 Of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that legal & consultancy services under RCM is liable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “in absence of any reply or any supporting documents, Legal fees expense incurred by the assessee are expenses towards Legal services. Accordingly, Service Tax on Legal Fee expense incurred by the assessee is upheld.”
Case Title: M/s Akanksha Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51269 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that customs broker not responsible if client moves to new premises once verification of address is complete.
“The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker” stated the Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
FOB Value Of Goods Can't Be Modified By Anyone Including Any Customs Officer: CESTAT
Case Title: JBN Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50127 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract, including any Customs officer has any right to interfere with the Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has stated that “there is a privity of contract between the buyer and the seller and they alone can decide the terms of contract and in case of non-compliance by one, the other can seek to enforce it. The consideration or the transaction value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract including any officer.”
Case Title: M/s Spain Electronics v. Commissioner (Appeals-I)
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50585 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that installation and commissioning of goods after sale is not a “works contracts”, hence service tax is not leviable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “merely because the goods were installed and commissioned after sale, the contract would not become a works contract services.”
Service Tax Is Leviable On Renting Of Immovable Property: CESTAT
Case Title: Satnam Kaur v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53769 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is leviable on renting of immovable property.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has opined that unless the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service is held to be ultra vires by any constitutional court, it will continue to be a valid levy.
Case Title: M/s Essjay Telecom and IT Services Private Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50853 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount deposited as service tax, if refundable, should not be treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
“Section 11B provides for refund of duty or service tax. If an amount is already paid as duty or service tax, it is reckoned while computing if any further amount needs to be paid to meet the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under section 35F. Merely because such adjustment is made, the amount paid as service tax or fine or penalty does not become pre-deposit under section 35F” stated the bench of P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
No Service Tax On Services By Organizer In Respect Of Business Exhibition Held Outside India: CESTAT
Case Title: Aksh Optifibre Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Alwar
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50810 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on services by organizer in respect of business exhibition held outside India. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that
“…the Business Exhibition for which the appellant received services from the foreign agencies, were held outside the taxable territory. Resultantly, the Place of Provision of Services received by the appellant from the foreign service provider shall be outside the territory of India. Accordingly, appellant is not liable to pay service tax even under RCM.”
Activity Of “Chilling Of Milk” Is A Service, Leviable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Jai Durge Ice Factory v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52965 of 2018 [DB]
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that activity of chilling of milk is leviable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the activity of chilling of milk during the post negative period amounts to rendering 'services' as defined in section 65B (44) and is therefore, leviable to service tax.”
Case Title: M/s. Raj Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54671 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the advertising agency being a pure agent is not liable to pay service tax on amount payable to media companies on behalf of their clients.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The assessee has conceded about their liability to pay service tax on the amount of commission received by them while rendering the advertising agency service to the print media. However, still has contested the same on the ground of limitation.”
Case Title: M/s The Indure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51192 Of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that if an assessee fails to discharge his tax liability under the bonafide belief that tax did not need to be paid, no penalty is leviable.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “even if payment is made through CENVAT for GTA services, which is impermissible, it cannot be stated that the assessee had misstated or suppressed any information or evaded tax in as much as the details of the payment were available in the return.”
Service Tax Leviable On RIICO And RASMB For Commercial And Industrial Construction Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Gokulnath Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Central GST, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53032 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is a service tax liability on RIICO and RASMB for commercial and industrial construction services.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) was addressing the issue of the tax liability of the service provider providing “Commercial and Industrial Construction Service” to the public authorities.
Amount Recovered Towards Penalty Is Not A Service, Service Tax Not Leviable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. AVVNL V. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51973 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount recovered towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity and as a result there is no 'service'. Therefore, no service tax is leviable.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Technical) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “the amount recovered by the assessee towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity which has been undertaken by the assessee and as a result there is no 'service' in terms of Section 65B (44) of the Act.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Excess Transportation Charges Recovered From Buyers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51587 of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on excess transportation charges recovered from the buyers.
The activity of arranging transportation of goods till the dealer's premises cannot be classified under “Business Auxiliary Service” and, therefore, no service tax is payable on transportation related expenses recovered in excess by the assessee from their buyers, stated the Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical).
Customs Broker Cannot Be Faulted For Trusting Government-Issued Certificates: CESTAT
Case Title: Ravi Dhanwariya v. The Commissioner of Customs-New Delhi -Airport And General
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54889 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that when a government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates so issued.
The Tribunal opined that “If there are documents issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address.”
Student Almanac And Teacher Planner Not Exigible To Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Sona Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeal
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55542 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Student Almanac and teacher planner not exigible to excise duty.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the submission of the assessee that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes a product of printing industry cannot be accepted.
Case Title: M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, And CGST Commissionerate
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 52154 Of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is no exemption on the articles described as pendants as the jewellery is not distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “The contention of the assessee that articles of jewellery do not cover pendant of 24 CARAT within its purview is misleading and unsustainable as nowhere in the Chapter Note or the Heading, the jewellery is distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
Case Title: Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 86917 of 2016
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim for service tax cannot be claimed on transactions took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India.
The Bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) has observed that, “The said claim for refund is in respect of service tax paid by the assessee in respect of transactions that took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India and, therefore, that service tax was not payable.”
Case Title: East West Fright Carriers Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86361 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that failure to file declaration may be considered as a technical irregularity if customs authorities failed to notice it.
“There is no doubt that the declaration had to be made and, the deployment of 'abundant caution' in the instructions notwithstanding, it would appear that the said declaration was of not of insignificance in the procedure prescribed under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and handling of drawback claims but it has not been shown that customs broker had not advised the client about the documentation and that non-compliance thereof was not to be taken thereof by the proper officer except upon reporting by the broker” stated the Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and CJ Mathew (Technical Member).
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 27th March 2025 vide Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST has given clarification on various issues related to availment of benefit of Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017.
Based on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 53rd and 54th meetings, a new section 128A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 164 has been inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1st November 2024 to provide for waiver of interest or penalty or both relating to demands raised under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020.
Case Title: Noorul Ayin Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No: Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently clarified that once the luggage/bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India, during the aircrafts domestic run, is intercepted by the officers, there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply.
The CESTAT therefore held that, “'baggage' under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to 'any goods imported or exported as baggage' as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962”. (Para 14)
No CENVAT Credit On Training Of Employees Of GAIL By Training Institutes: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Gail Training Institute Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50632 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no CENVAT credit on training of employees of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) by training institutes.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The term “coaching and training” must be “coaching and training” of the employees of the assessee. Merely because the bills were paid by the assessee, the services provided by way of coaching and training of employees of GAIL do not become input services of the assessee.”
Customs Officer Is A Stranger To Contract Of Sale, Cannot Re-Determine FOB Value: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Kritika Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract of sale, including the Customs officer, has any right to re-determine the FOB or transactional value of goods.
The Free on Board or (FOB )is one of the INCOTERMS – which are the terms used in international commerce. The INCOTERMS make the costs, risks and liabilities of the buyer and seller explicit. If the goods are exported on FOB basis, the seller is responsible until the goods are put on Board the vessel or aircraft. All costs and risks up to loading the goods on to the ship or aircraft are on the seller‟s account. The seller is free once the goods are put on board. The costs and risks associated with transportation to the destination, etc., are all on account of the buyer.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- Delhi-IV
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51901 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on buying or selling of space in print media and receiving incentives on meeting targets.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee cannot have an obligation to the media houses. All that is paid by the media houses is, if the assessee achieves particular target while carrying out its business for its clients, the media house gives some incentives.
Case Title: M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Appeal
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51699 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by assessee is entitled to basic customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that what was to be examined was whether the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for the reason that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the assessee would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 was justified or not.
Case Title: M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur, Headquarters Jaipur
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that same rate tax and interest applicable on IGST in the course of inter-state trade and supplies in the course of imports.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, the taxable event to levy IGST is the inter-state supply of goods and services (including supplies in the course of international trade). If there is no supply, there is no scope to levy IGST even if goods are imported.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. ITC Ltd, Gurgaon
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 1086 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “In relation to manpower supply to five units on cost recovery basis, the Commissioner noticed that ITC had deputed employees to other hotels to operate and maintain those hotels in line with ITC Welcome group standards and run those hotels in a smooth and efficient manner. Thus, supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.”
Case Title: M/s Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals Versus Commissioner of CGST and, Service Tax, Excise and Customs
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50967 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that suppression or wilful concealment not attributable when the departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “When the two departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services under a specific category, no suppression or wilful concealment with intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the assessee.”
Case Title: Harvinder Kaur Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50731 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax would be chargeable on the commission received by a Distributor from Amway on the products purchased by his sales group.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) observed that “the assessee is an individual, who cannot be faulted if she thought that she was only a dealer; a difference between the purchase price and the sale price or MRP is available to her and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intention to evade service tax. The said issue arose only because Amway called such amount as 'commission' whereas the assessee simply sold the goods to the person who asked a product at a particular MRP…”
Case Title: M/s. Career Point Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52382 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that subscription and redemption of liquid mutual fund units can't be termed as “trading of goods”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of investment in mutual funds does not involve the presence of a service rendered by a service provider towards a recipient of service for some consideration. The activity undertaken would not amount to “service” in terms of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: M/s Oiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50314 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that disputed amount paid under protest much after clearance of goods is not covered by unjust enrichment.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) has observed that “once the supplies have already been made, any amount paid thereafter, as tax or deposit, the burden of such amount cannot be passed on to the assessee and, therefore, the test of unjust enrichment is not applicable.”
Case Title: M/s Sannam S-4 Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.50666 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the consultancy services rendered by the assessee to the foreign university/foreign group entity do not fall under the category of “intermediary services” and the assessee are eligible for the benefit of “export of services”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and (Technical Member) has observed that “it may also be appreciated that the final decision of admitting a student is that of the foreign university. The assessee on the other hand is acting in its independent capacity as a business promoter and does not act as an agent of the university. The fact that the assessee is rendering services on its own account, it cannot be treated as an “intermediary”. On the conclusion that assessee is not an “intermediary”, Rule 9 of POPS Rules will not be applicable and consequently Rule 3 would apply.”
Case Title: HIM Logistics Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs Export (ICD TKD), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.53566 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that penalty can't be imposed under Section 114AA Customs Act on customs broker merely for failing to physically verify the importer's premises.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the allegations that the appellant did not physically verify the premises of the importer, are not sufficient to fasten the appellant with the penalty. It has not been established that the appellant handled this consignment with any malafide motive. It is essential to establish an intentional or deliberate act or omission and to the act of abetment for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.”
12% IGST Is Leviable On Imported 'Lemoneez' Drink: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dabur India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75364 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 12% IGST is leviable on imported 'Lemoneez'.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether 'Lemoneez' is appropriately classifiable under residuary item 2106 90 19 as a soft drink concentrate [under miscellaneous edible preparations, not elsewhere specified], or under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (juice of a single citrus fruit).
Case Title: M/s. Composite Impex v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50955 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that admissibility of printouts from seized electronic evidence requires certificate under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “that a printout generated from a secondary electronic evidence that has been seized, cannot be admitted in evidence unless the statutory conditions laid down in section 36B of the Central Excise Act are complied with.”
Case Title: Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur v. M/S Pelican Quartz Stone
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50196 OF 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no exporter has an obligation to either anticipate or to conform to views of DRI in classifying goods in shipping bills.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “no exporter has any obligation to anticipate any views of DRI, audit or preventive officers regarding the classification of the goods or to conform to them. The exporter fulfils his obligation once he files the Shipping Bills classifying goods as per his understanding.”
Case Title: Kalpakaaru Projects Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, CGST-Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50302 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that actual figures can be considered for determining service tax payable by assessee if books of accounts show higher figures than statutory returns.
The Bench of Justices Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “If the books of accounts show higher figures than the statutory returns the actual figures can be considered for determining the service tax payable by the appellant. However, before considering the figures in the statutory returns and other records, what needs to be ascertained is whether the figures therein represent the value of the taxable services provided or not.”
Case Title: M/s. Roy's Institute of Competitive Examination Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75230 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on hostel fees received for non-residential courses in coaching institute.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that “the stand-alone hostel charges collected for non-residential courses, have no connection with Commercial Training and Coaching services as defined under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, in as much as, even if any student, who do not avail this service, would continue to avail the course offered by the assessee and therefore, the question of payment of service tax does not arise.”
Case Title: Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 51117 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knowledge and intention must be there to impose penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “Knowledge and intention is sine qua non for imposing penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act. The department has not been able to establish knowledge on part of the assessee or intention on the part of the assessee to help the exporter in obtaining the alleged undue export advantage. In such circumstances, penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed upon the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Artifacts India v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- II
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.55777 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bank charges paid to foreign banks are not liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “there is direct nexus of the buyer with the Foreign Bank, and it is held that when the provider of service i.e. 'the Foreign Bank' and recipient of service i.e. 'the Buyer' are both located outside India, there is no question of taxing such service in India as the said service has been provided outside the taxable territory and outside the purview of Section 66B the charging section for levy of service tax.”
Royalty Paid For Exclusive Trademark License Is Not Taxable As A Service: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Bajaj Resources Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53227 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for exclusive trademark license is not taxable as service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the assessee was restrained to use the said trademark during the said period in any territory of the world and as such the transaction was a transaction of 'Deemed Sale' inviting no service tax liability. Hence, the amount paid by the assessee for which refund has been claimed was the amount not towards the duty but was an amount wrongly deposited by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Hewlett Packard Sales Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50203 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that re-determination value of CDs imported by HP India invalid without rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 Customs Valuation Rules 2007.
The bench stated that unless the proper officer rejects the transaction value under Rule 12, the valuation has to be based on transaction value as per Rule 3 with some additions, if necessary, as per Rule 10.
Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)-New Delhi V. M/S Akay Cones Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2008
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay redemption fine for seized goods missing from their custody.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether when the goods were seized handed over the assessee for safe custody and they went missing while in their custody, whether such goods can be confiscated or not.
Case Title: M/s Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that packing/re-packing of parts of vibrator compactor is not manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) Of Central Excise Act and hence no excise duty is leviable.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the two constructions equipments namely Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor are “Automobiles”, because only then the activity of packing/repacking of parts of the WTLB and VC would amount to manufacture under section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Bhopal v. M/s. Akansha Sales Promoters
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 50135 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings against assessee unsustainable once discharge certificate is issued under SVLDRS [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019] Scheme.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) was addressing the issue that in case where the assessee opts for SVLDRS Scheme and obtained discharge certificate can the proceedings by way of appeal by the Revenue is sustainable or not.
Statement Recorded U/S 108 Of Customs Act Is Not Valid Evidence U/S 138B Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Shanti Swaroop Sharma, Director v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50071 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act not valid evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act.
Service Tax Payable On Service Charges Collected From Client For Printing: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chhattisgarh Samvad v. Principal Commissioner
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51826 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax payable on service charges collected from client for printing.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee engaged someone else to do the job of printing after preparing content using its in-house expertise. The assessee was, by no stretch of imagination a job worker to a printer. The printer, in fact, was the assessee's sub-contractor. The assessee is liable to pay service tax on the service charges which it had collected from the client departments towards printing work but only within the normal period of limitation.
Case Title: Sistema Smart Technologies Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60295 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax not leviable on license fee/spectrum charges payable for period prior to 01.04.2016.
The Bench consists of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has stated that “as per the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase “any other document issued by the Government demanding such payment” should only include documents of similar nature to an invoice, bill or challan. If we apply this principle, then the phrase “any other document issued by the Government demanding such payment” cannot be an agreement as considered by the department in the case because the same is not issued in the nature of an invoice, bill or challan.”
Case Title: M/s Balajee Structural India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50124 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that profit earned in GTA service (Goods Transport Agency Service) through sub-contractor not taxable as business auxiliary service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “revenue's attempt to charge service tax on the profit calling it business auxiliary service cannot be accepted because the service which the assessee provided to Jhakodia Minerals was GTA service. Part of the consideration received cannot be treated as a separate service because there is no evidence of any other service being provided”.
Case title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50727 OF 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has held that lithium-ion batteries used for the manufacture of mobile phones up to March 31, 2020 would attract 12% GST.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) added that if lithium-ion batteries were not used in the manufacture of mobile phones, they would attract 28% GST up to July 26, 2018 and 18% GST thereafter until March 31, 2020.
HIV Test Kits Qualify As Life-Saving Diagnostic Kits; Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cepheid India Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52186 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that HIV-VL test kits qualify as life-saving diagnostic kits and is eligible for customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the HIV-VL test kits are “life-saving diagnostic kits” used for detection and prognosis of HIV-virus in a human body.
Case Title: M/s Goldstar Glasswares Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52752 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bonafide declaration of value of goods can't be treated as suppression merely for being incorrect.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the declaration of the value of goods was a bonafide declaration and merely because it is ultimately found to be incorrect will not mean that the valuation was with a bad motive not declared correctly. Penalty under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act could not, therefore, have been imposed upon the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Rahul Agarwal v. Commissioner CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50395 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that construction sub-contractor cannot escape service tax liability when main contractor is taxable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that the construction of residential complexes was not exempt from service tax duty. Hence, the sub-contractors were liable to discharge their service tax liability on such services provided by them to the main contractor.
Notional Cost Of Maruti's Free Designs Supplied To Vendors Not Dutiable Under Central Excise: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Bosch Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. of 50587 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that notional cost of Maruti's free designs supplied to vendors not dutiable under Central Excise.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue whether the notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendor should be included in the assessable value of parts or components manufactured by vendor and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Income Tax Data In Form 26AS
Case Title: M/s Shree Ganesh Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50211 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax demand cannot be based solely on Income Tax Data in Form 26AS without establishing receipt of consideration.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that “Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of difference in the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and those reflected in Form 26AS without examining the reasons for said difference and without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant as reflected in the Form 26AS is the consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement”.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 55256 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that interest on delayed refund is statutorily mandated after 3 months under Section 11BB Of Central Excise Act.
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that if a duty refund is not processed within three months from the receipt of an application, the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed amount. It empowers Central Government to fix rate between 5-30% through notification. Notification 67/2003 validly issued fixing 6% rate.
Case Title: M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 50720 of 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'perk' products are 'wafer biscuits', not chocolates and are entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether Perk, ULTA Perk, Perk Poppers and Wafer Uncoated Reject manufactured by the assessee are classifiable under Excise Tariff Item 1905 32 11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under ETI 1905 32 90.
Demand U/S 73A Of Finance Act Unsustainable Without Proof Of Service Tax Collection: CESTAT
Case Title: Taj Sats Air Catering Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51544 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that demand under Section 73A Of Finance Act unsustainable without proof of service tax collection.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the invoice does not indicate any service tax collection by the assessee. The assessee had merely collected VAT and AAI levy from their clients, and no amount representing Service tax has been collected. Consequently, the demand under Section 73A cannot be sustained in respect of 5 of the Show Cause Notices issued to the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Achiever International v. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi II
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 248 of 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods not prohibited under foreign trade policy still require valid IEC (Importer Exporter Codes), import using bogus codes is impermissible.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that there is nothing in the FTDR Act (The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which provides for any IEC holder to lend his IEC to somebody else or for anyone to import goods borrowing someone else's IEC.
No Service Tax On 'Upfront Fee' Received By DMRC From Customers Under Concession Agreement: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55198 of 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on 'upfront fee' received by DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) from customers under concession agreement.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the “upfront fee” received by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. from various customers under the Concession Agreements entered prior to 1.7.2010 is exigible to service tax on or after 1.7.2010 under “Renting of Immovable Property Services”.
Service Tax To Be Paid By Distributor, Not By Theatre Owner For Film Screening: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M2K Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, (Delhi West)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54027 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax has to be paid by the distributor under “Copy Right Service” for transfer of right by licence to screen the film in the theatre of the owner.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”. Moreover, the element of consideration, i.e. the quid pro quo for services, which is a necessary ingredient of any taxable service is absent. The revenue has not been able to establish the service provider and service recipient relationship between the assessee and the distributor. Consequently, no service tax can be levied on the assessee.”
Customs Act | Mere Purchase Of Gold Without Bill Not Enough To Prove Gold Smuggling: CESTAT
Case Title: Rajesh Sehgal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Preventive, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51467 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere purchase of gold without bill not enough to prove gold smuggling.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that the mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. The order imposing penalty on the appellants and confiscating their money is not sustainable.
Case Title: M/s Environment Planning & Coordination Organization v. The Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52116 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that CENVAT Credit can't be claimed on note sheets and sanction orders and required valid documents with mandatory details.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that it is not open to the assessee to take CENVAT credit on the basis of note sheets or sanction orders or invoices which do not have the essential details. The assessee could take CENVAT credit only on the strength of proper and valid documents.
No Service Tax On Target-Based Discounts From Maruti Suzuki To Dealers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Vipul Motors Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52943 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on target-based discounts from Maruti Suzuki to dealers.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the incentives/ discounts received by the dealers of car manufacturer were not taxable under Auxiliary Service (BAS), as they were the part of a business transaction on a principle-to-principle basis.
Customs | Counter Vailing Duty Not Applicable On Import Of Pan Masala Processing Machines: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51630 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) is not applicable on import of pan masala processing machines.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the assessee is the manufacture of the PanMasala and has imported the machines for cutting / grinding / sorting of Areca Nuts (Supari/seed), the raw material of the Pan Masala. From the description of the three of the machines it becomes apparently clear that assessee has imported machines for carrying out such functions only as are specifically mentioned under CTH 8437200.
Case Title: M/s. Uflex Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)-New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51897 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that anti-dumping duty paid by mistake in self-assessment has no legal character of 'duty' and must be refunded.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that the assessee had added the amount of Anti-dumping duty while self-assessing the customs duty liability. Hence the Anti-dumping duty added to the amount of duty while self-assessing the Bill of Entry cannot take the character of duty.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Castrol India Ltd.
Case Number: CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that movement of goods to carrying and forwarding agents in other states is stock transfer, not inter-state sale, central sales tax not leviable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that “the supplies made from the stockyards/warehouses to the Distributors would be a local sale in the State where the stockyards/warehouses are situated. Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.”
Case Title: M/s J.N. Investments & Trading Company Private Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52875 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transfer of approvals/allotments acquired from government involves business support services, attracts service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the approvals and allotments so obtained are not 'profit a prendre' hence cannot be called as benefit arising out of immovable property. Assessees are rightly held to have rendered the Business Support Services to EIL/WWIL.
Case Title: M/s. T.A. Pai Management Institute v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 2374 of 2011
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that placement services to MNCs by the educational trust is liable to service tax under 'manpower recruitment services'.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the recruiting facility to MNCs and other recruiting organisations by the assessee is liable to service tax under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'.
Skill Development Programmes Approved By Govt Qualify For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M.M. Group v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75950 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Skill Development Programme approved by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India is eligible for the exemption from payment of service tax.
K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that the programme undertaken by the assessee is approved by the Government and hence the activity undertaken by them is eligible for the exemption from payment of Service tax, as the said activity are covered under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012.
Loose Sheets And Private Diaries Not Sufficient Evidence For Excise Duty Demand: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s DD Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 76871-76872 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that loose sheets and private diaries is not sufficient evidence for excise duty demand.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) stated that mere tallying of certain entries, does not make out these loose sheets to be complete evidence of the purchases and sales and other details pertaining to the assessee.
Case Title: Riyaz Sayed Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85411 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Section 114 AA Customs Act is applicable only for dummy exports made only on paper, not actual export of goods.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that it has been made clear that the imposition of enhanced penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act is applicable only for serious frauds being committed in cases where no goods are being exported, but only papers are being created for availing the number of benefits under various export promotion schemes.
Case Title: M/s. Raipur Development Authority v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53203 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that leasing out land for 90 years against one-time payment constitutes transfer of immovable property, exempt from service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the act of transferring the land on lease for a period of 90 years against the one-time premium giving all rights of use, possession and even sale to the developer amounts to fall under the definition of service or under the definition of renting of immovable property.
Goods Used As Implants Or Rehabilitation Aids Are Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87524 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods used as implants or rehabilitation aids are eligible for Customs Duty exemption.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that “since, the implants such as repair of knee, hip and other joints, shoulder and various other parts of the body; repair of soft tissue injuries and degenerative conditions of the shoulder etc., are in the nature of instruments/implants described in item (B)(1), the impugned goods are also specifically covered under the List-30 and List-3 of the notifications No. 50/2017-Customs and No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate).”
No Excise Duty On Manufacture Of Drip Irrigation System And Its Component Parts: CESTAT
Case Title: Jain Irrigation Systems Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL No. 137 of 2007
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no excise duty on manufacture of drip irrigation system and its component parts.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that the impugned goods viz., polytubes, microtubes, HDPE pipes were used for Drip irrigation systems, the appropriate classification in terms of the CBEC circular dated 16.03.1998 would be under sub-heading no. 8424.91, and not under chapter heading no. 39.17
Service Tax Not Leviable On Repairs Of School Building Run By Military Engineering Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya Constructions v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 3572 of 2012
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax not leviable on repairs of school building run by military engineering services.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) opined that the services rendered to Military Engineering Services (MES) was in relation to Sainik School run by them and such building cannot be used for commerce and hence repairs of such building are beyond the scope of service tax.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Cricket Association Clubs's Services To Its Members: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 25437 of 2013
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) stated that service tax is not leviable on cricket association club services to its members, and further allowed Cenvat Credit on the LED score board.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) stated that the Commissioner's finding that the said LED score board has no nexus with the taxable service provided viz. Mandap Keeper service and other services is also devoid of merit. Therefore, denial of cenvat credit on LED score board cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/s Play House Motion Pictures Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20876 of 2016
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on transfer or assignment of copyright of film produced under copyright service.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether service tax can be levied on exhibition of films under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or demand can be confirmed against transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced by assessee under Copyright Service.
Case Title: M/s. Onmobile Global Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20430 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mobile value-added services to telephone service providers classified as online information database access and retrieval services (OIDAR), service tax applicable.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Mobile Value-Added Services rendered by the assessee can be classified as 'Online Information Database Access and Retrieval Services' (OIDAR) as claimed by the Revenue or are they classifiable as 'Information Technology Software Services' (ITSS) as claimed by the assessee.
Drawback Not Allowed Where Refund Exceeds Market Value Of Goods: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 53962 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that drawback not allowed where refund exceeds market value of goods.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b), no drawback shall be allowed.
Cenvat Credit Can Be Availed On Sugar Cess Paid On Imported Raw Sugar: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s A B Sugar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 2696 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that cenvat credit can be availed on sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar or not.
Tribunal Has Inherent Authority To Stay Orders Detrimental To Revenue: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. SKOT India
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40893/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that tribunal has inherent authority to stay orders detrimental to revenue.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that “the power of taxation including its collection being an inherent attribute of sovereignty, the right of revenue to seek a stay of an order determinantal to the collection of taxes, cannot be lightly dismissed….……..we find force in the plea made by the revenue that Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also contains the power for grant of a stay against an order or its part. In any case such a power is inherent in the powers of the Tribunal.”
No Service Tax On Catering Services Provided To Educational Institutions: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Smt. Kala Kudal v. The Commissioner, Central Excise & GST, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51606 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax on catering services provided to educational institutions.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the catering services provided by the assessee to a School with hostel facility are covered under the exemption from payment of service tax given at serial no.9 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Revenue Cannot Enforce Optional Exemption Notification Without Assessee's Consent: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods v. M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52196 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue cannot enforce optional exemption notification without assessee's consent.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that once an exemption is claimed, the assessee will not get CENVAT credit and may lose some other benefits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the optional exemption notification should be applied even if the assessee does not opt for it or for even for period before it opts for it.
DRI Has Jurisdiction To Issue Show Cause Notice In Drawback Cases: CESTAT
Case Title: Manasa Impex Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 290/2009
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in drawback cases.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether DRI Officers have the jurisdiction to issue SCN under Section 75 of the Customs Act read with the relevant Rule.
Excise Duty Exemption Not Available On Industrial Sewing Machines With In-Built Motors: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Swarup Mechanical Works (Unit 1) v. Additional Director General (Adj.), Director General of GST Intelligence
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52049 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty exemption not available on industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (S. No. 15) and its successor Notification No. 1/2011CE dated 1.3.2011 (S. No. 97) on the manufacturing of industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Curtain Glass Affixed To Building Not Removable, Hence Not Liable To Central Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – II v. M/s AGV Alfag Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that curtain glass/ structural glazing affixed to building not removable, hence not liable to central excise duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the curtain glass fixed by the assessee in the form of works contract on the walls of buildings can be charged to central excise duty.
Refund Claim On Service Tax For Cancelled Property Bookings Maintainable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54979 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim on service tax for cancelled property bookings maintainable.
The Tribunal stated that the assessee had issued credit notes in respect of service which is not rendered to the customers on account of cancellation of the agreement and hence there was no scope of rendering any services on which the service tax could be levied.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Deposits Made Under Interim Orders: CESTAT
Case Title: Principal Commissioner v. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50318 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on deposits made pursuant to interim orders.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were dealing with the issue of whether service tax can be levied on the amounts paid or deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court as per interim orders.
ADG DRI Does Not Have Power To Declare DEPB Scripts Issued By DGFT Null And Void: CESTAT
Case Title: Pankaj Chordia v. The Commissioner of Customs, Cargo Complex
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50453 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that ADG DRI (Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) does not have power to declare DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scripts issued by DGFT Directorate General of Foreign Trade) null and void.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the customs officers who cleared the goods also must have also accepted the DEPB scrips in good faith. At any rate, the DEPB scrips were validly issued by the DGFT and neither the Commissioner nor the DRI has the power to overrule the decision of the DGFT and hold that the DEPB scrips were ab initio null and void.
Refund Of CVD & SAD Paid After GST Introduction Maintainable U/S 142(3) Of CGST Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Rashtriya Metal Industries Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10388 OF 2020-SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund of CVD (Countervailing Duty) & SAD (Special Additional Duty) paid after GST introduction maintainable U/S 142(3) CGST Act.
Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) was addressing the issue of whether refund claim is admissible under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 in lieu of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD, where such CVD & SAD are paid after introduction of GST due to non-fulfilment of export obligations against the goods imported duty free, prior to introduction of GST.
Case Title: IBM India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Final Order No. 21279/2025
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay interest on short reversal of common cenvat credit used for exempted services.
The question before P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was whether interest liability arises on the short reversals of the cenvat credit availed by the assessee on the exempted services.
Preloaded Software On Imported Navigation Devices Liable To Customs Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmi Access Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.2006 of 2012
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that value of preloaded software to be included in assessable value of imported navigation devices and is liable to customs duty.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the value of software preloaded/ etched into the imported navigation systems, be included in the assessable value of the said navigation systems and confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties sustainable.
Refund Can't Be Rejected On Grounds Of Classification Once Tax Liability Is Settled: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Airport Retail Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurgaon-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51677 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund cannot be rejected on grounds of classification once tax liability is settled.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is permissible subject to two conditions: - the claim should have been raised before one year from the relevant date; and the claimant has not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest to any other persons.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sood v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), CGST- Delhi
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51127 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that compensation for breach of agreement to sell land is not taxable as declared service U/S 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the amount of Rs. 4.5 crores each received by the assessee from the land owners is compensation for the reneging on the agreement to sell. It does not fall under section 66E(e) and is not a declared service.
Case Title: Habasit Iakoka Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41230/2013
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the Registry to refer two appeals to the President of CESTAT for the constitution of a Special Bench to hear and decide the matter against a common order.
Citing the principle of “comity of Courts,” the bench, consisting of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), observed that since the Ahmedabad Bench had already heard an appeal from the same impugned order, it would be appropriate for the Chennai Bench to decline jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
CESTAT Quashes ₹56.47 Crore Customs Duty Demand On Dish TV Over Smart Card Classification
Case Name: Videocon D2H Limited/Dish TV v Additional Director General, DRI
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51007 OF 2020
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently set aside a ₹56.47 crore customs duty demand against Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Ltd) in a dispute over the classification of imported smart cards.
A coram of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Technical Member P V Subba Rao quashed an order dated April 28, 2020, passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI.
Case Title: M/s Professional Examination Board v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52205 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the government examination board is not liable to service tax on examination fees collected from candidates.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that the examination fees collected from the candidates appearing for the examination being conducted by the appellant/assessee cannot be considered as consideration for the supply of manpower recruitment and supply services to the state government departments.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that IRCTC's (Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.) licensing for the operation of food plazas is not liable to service tax under 'renting of immovable property'.
The Tribunal observed that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property. The terms of the agreement make it abundantly clear as to what is the true and actual purpose of the agreement and the relationship between the parties.
Incorrect Declaration In Bill Of Entry Attracts Penalty U/S 114AA Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Nitin Khandelwal v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50914 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that imports and filing of the Bill of Entry are transactions of business under the Customs Act. Section 114AA would squarely apply to those transactions. In this case, the importer filed a Bill of Entry to clear goods imported by it and self-assessed the duty payable on them.
Case Title: M/s Simran Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50268 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings under Rule 16/16A Drawback Rules are merely execution proceedings; cannot modify value in shipping bills.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings, and they cannot be used to modify the value or any other parameter in the Shipping Bills.
Case Title: M/s.Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently held that the arrangement between Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) and private vendors for operating Food Plazas at railway premises does not amount to 'renting of immovable property' and, thus, does not attract service tax under that category.
A two-member coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P V Subba Rao held that the agreements were not lease transactions but business arrangements based on revenue sharing.
Case Title: M/s. Dynamic Infratech v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20455 of 2023
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a show cause notice cannot be issued solely based on voluntary disclosure by the assessee under the SVLDRS Scheme [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019].
The bench, consisting of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member), agreed with the Commissioner that even though documents were placed before the authorities concerned, the original authority confirmed the demand only based on the SVLDRS Form-1 filed by the assessee, which is non-existent as per Clause 2(c) of Section 129 of the SVLDR Scheme.
Revenue Sharing Arrangements Not Taxable As Service U/S 65(90a) Of Finance Act: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52667 OF 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue-sharing arrangements are not taxable as a service under Section 65(90a) of the Finance Act.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property.
Case Title: M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50208 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that crowd-sourced information available on platforms like Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to fasten tax liability on the assessee.
The Tribunal opined that Wikipedia is an open source information available online and anyone can write about the topic and anyone else can edit it. Thereafter, somebody else can further edit it. It is not the opinion of any one expert but is only crowd-sourced information.
Advance Received Towards Sale Of Land Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Suwalka & Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52874 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount of advance received by the assessee with respect to the sale of land is out of the scope of applicability of the provisions of the Finance Act, and hence, no service tax is leviable.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) stated that the assessee has successfully established that the activity undertaken with reference to the amount in question pertains to the sale of immovable property, and as such, he was not liable to pay any service tax on the amount received as an advance towards that sale.
Case Title: Royal Blankets v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51721 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an Excel sheet recovered from the email account of the assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that Section 138C applies only when the document is printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand Against Wipro Over Tamil Nadu Govt's Free Laptop Scheme
Case Title: Wipro Ltd.v The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40803 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai on Wednesday quashed the excise department's demand for additional duty from Wipro Ltd., ruling that the company's supply of laptops to the Tamil Nadu government for free distribution to students cannot be treated as a commercial sale and therefore cannot be taxed at retail price.
A two-member bench comprising Judicial Member P Dinesha and Technical Member M Ajit Kumar said the case was covered by an earlier decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the PG Electroplast matter where it was held that that the free distribution of colour TVs to poorer sections on behalf of the government can't be called a commercial activity.
Case Title: M/s. Ericsson India Private Limited v. Additional Director General
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50439 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for technical know-how is not a 'condition of sale' merely because it is included in the value of imported goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemembika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that both the Technical Agreements relate to transfer of technical know-how, amongst others, in the form of design sheets detailing manufacturing methods and specifications of raw materials for all the components used in the manufacture/assemble or the products and the payment on royalty is not a condition of sale of imported goods and in fact relates to post import activities.
SSI Exemption Can't Be Denied Merely For Using Common/Assigned Brand Names: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Aashish Enterprises v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42303 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that SSI (Small Scale Industry) Exemption can't be denied merely for using common/assigned brand names.
The Tribunal opined that once a brand name is legally assigned or transferred, the SSI unit becomes the “owner” of the brand. Therefore, it is no longer the “brand name of another person,” and the restriction in Condition No. 4 of Notification No. 8/2003-CE does not apply.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41366 & 41367 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that variable 'P' under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refers only to common credit, not total credit, prior to 01.04.2016.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether, for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2014, the variable “P” in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would denote total credit or common credit.
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the FOB (Free On Board) value determined between the parties is protected by privity of contract, and it cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that FOB value is the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”. The FOB value of the individual components declared by the assessee, therefore, could not have been rejected.
Customs | AIFTA Exemption Cannot Be Denied Without Verifying Certificate Of Origin: CESTAT
Case Title: Marvel Silver v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86363 OF 2023
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the AIFTA (ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement) exemption cannot be denied without verifying the certificate of origin.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) noted that there is no allegation, let alone ascertainment, that the 'certificate of origin' corresponding to each of the impugned consignments is not authentic or not issued by the competent authority. There is no reasoning offered for concluding that the description of the impugned goods did not conform to the contents of the certificate or packing lists.
Case Title: M/s Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50494 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the differential duty paid for provisional release is not a pre-deposit. Hence, refund interest payable only at 6% U/S 27A Customs Act, not 12% U/S 35FF Central Excise Act.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that all those goods were ordered to be released as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, at the assessee's own request for provisional release of the goods. This apparent and admitted fact is sufficient to hold that the amounts in question cannot be considered as an amount deposited under protest. Hence, Section 35FF is held to not be applicable to the given set of circumstances.
Case Title: G Amphray Laboratories v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-III)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 87856 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that confiscation, penalty & fine cannot be imposed on IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) demand arising from breach of pre-import condition under Customs Act.
Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) opined that the IGST demand arose because of the breach of the pre-import condition. Although IGST is payable for such a breach, no confiscation or penalty can be imposed merely on that ground.
Case Title: KDS Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2009
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without any Section 139C certificate under the Customs Act cannot form the basis of assessment.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the computer/ CPU was not sealed at the time of panchnama and was lying with the investigating agency for 47 days, after which it was first examined and then sealed, which raises questions about the authenticity of the data.
Case Title: M/s Texcomash Export & Sh. N.K. Rajgarhia v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 724 of 2005
The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that drawback cannot be denied on the grounds of alleged forgery by a foreign buyer after goods are exported under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1995.
The single bench consists of (Judicial Member) opined that any forgery, if revealed during a further investigation being committed by the Russian company vis-a-vis the Landing certificate in the light of Drawback Rules in India, is highly insufficient to deny the claim of drawback, specifically when the goods have crossed Indian territory and to reach to a place outside India.
Case Title: Continental Trading Co. v. Principal Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51966 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that an importer cannot be penalised for misdeclaration merely because other importers declared high prices for similar goods under the Customs Valuation Rules.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that the mere fact that another importer had imported identical goods from the same overseas exporter at different prices does not prove that the assessee had mis-declared anything in the Bill of Entry.
Advertisement, Promotional And Management Service Payments Excluded From Customs Valuation: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Triumph Motorcycles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Director General (Adjudication), D.R.I., New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50212 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Advertisement and Promotional Expenses and Management Service Fees (APE and MSF) payments are independent transactions, and cannot be included in the transaction value of imported goods.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the advertisement and promotional expenses incurred by the assessee in India are required to be added to the value of the imported goods, treating the said amount as constituting “condition of sale” of imported goods under section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules, 2007.
Case Title: Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40011 to 40014 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 142(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) cannot override the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that section 142(5) does not refer to overriding any particular provision, and hence the non obstante clause has to be examined and given a restricted meaning limited to the context in which it is used.
Case Title: M/s Leakless Gasket India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 55311 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Twaron Para Aramid Pulp is classified as 'textile flock', hence, the importers are liable for a higher customs duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Twaron Para Aramid Pulp imported by the assessee was classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 5601 22 00 or under CTI 5601 30 00.
Commission-Based Services To Foreign Clients As Agent Qualifies As 'Export Of Service': CESTAT
Case title: YKK India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax, Rohtak
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that commission-based services such as sales facilitation and regional support services provided by Indian counterparts to foreign companies qualified as 'export' and not as 'Business Auxiliary Services'.
The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of zippers and parts thereof in India and to neighbouring foreign companies, including YKK Singapore located in Singapore. The Department conducted an audit for FY 2006–07 to 2010–11, which led to two show cause notices—one covering FY 2006–07 to 2010–11 and the other covering FY 2011–12. Consequently, a Service Tax demand totalling Rs. 68,59,980 and CENVAT Credit recovery of Rs. 13,08,503, along with interest and penalties, was confirmed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act.
Case Name: Glenworth Estate Ltd.
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside service tax demand on commission paid to foreign agents for sale of black tea, finding that 'essential characteristic' of agricultural produce is retained.
CESTAT Chennai clarified that black tea gets covered by the expression 'in relation to agriculture' appearing in Notification 14/2004-S.T. (as amended) dated September 10, 2004 observes that “Once the black tea is found to be agricultural produce, services provided by a commission agent for sale or purchase of agricultural produce is covered by the negative list…”
Case Title: Tower Vision India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods & Service Tax-Gurugram
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60109 of 2022
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the provisions of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, do not extend to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and accordingly set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 4 crores.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that the provision of Chapter V of the Finance Act does not extend to J&K. Once the provisions of the Finance Act are not applicable in the State of J&K, then service tax cannot be demanded by resorting to POPS Rules, which cannot override the statutory provisions.
Case Title: Chennai Citi Centre Holdings (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40364 of 2017
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai on Friday held that a profit-sharing arrangement for managing a mall's parking facility does not amount to leasing of space and therefore is not liable to service tax.
The appeal was against an order of Commissioner of Service Tax that had upheld a service tax demand of over Rs 20 lakh, treating the parking arrangement between CCCHPL and SPIPL as leasing of space and therefore taxable.
Bharat Aluminium Entitled To CENVAT Credit On Mining Services Used For Bauxite Extraction: CESTAT
Case Title: The Commissioner, & Central Excise v. M/s Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55659 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Bharat Aluminium is entitled to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit on mining services used for bauxite extraction.
Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) agreed with the Principal Commissioner that since mining services were used for the extraction of bauxite from the mines owned by BALCO, and this bauxite was sent to Vendanta for conversion into alumina, which is a basic raw material used in the manufacture of aluminium by BALCO, there is a direct nexus between extraction of bauxite from the mines and the production of aluminium.
Case Title: Navin Fluorine International Limited v. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 51623 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that samples sent for research and development (R&D) and quality testing are not finished goods, and their dispatch to a laboratory cannot be treated as clandestine removal.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) stated that the assessee cleared samples for testing purposes to its in-house facility at Surat in the State of Gujarat and had not cleared finished goods. It cannot, therefore, be said that the assessee was engaged in clandestine removal of goods.
Case Title: M/s. Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51026 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Oppo Mobiles is eligible for customs exemption on microphones & receivers used in PCBA (Printed Circuit Board Assembly) prior to 06.07.2019.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that by virtue of the amendment Notification dated 06.07.2019, customs duty would also be leviable on microphones and receivers when imported into India, even if they are imported for the manufacture of PCBA of cellular mobile phones.
Case Name: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 40085/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held Xiaomi India liable for differential customs duties on royalties to Qualcomm and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software under various agreements for importing and selling Xiaomi-branded mobile phones and components.
The Bench comprising of Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) examined whether royalty payments were linked to imported goods and thus dutiable, concluded that “Royalties and License Fees paid by Xiaomi India are addable to the assessable value of the impugned goods as per Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the differential duty is payable by Xiaomi India for the extended period”.
Case Name: Tulsyan NEC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case No. : Service Tax Appeal No. 40031 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the denial of service tax credit distributed by the assessee, as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), to its unit. The Tribunal found that although invoices were issued in the name of the Branch Office, such invoices were “received” by the Head Office of the assessee, making it eligible to avail and distribute credit.
The Bench comprising Mr. M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) and Mr. Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member), on a perusal of connected documents such as contractual letters, delivery/performance certificates, debit notes, ledger vouchers, bank payment details and other supporting documents, noted that there was a “lack of nexus” to indicate shell suppliers or circular payments.
Case Title: M/s. Hotel President Planet v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50157 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is payable on free room nights and food discounts received in kind under a lease agreement with a hotel.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) was examining whether the complementary nights extended by the lessee to the lessor, along with the respective food discount, are to be considered as part of the gross value/taxable value.
Customs Duty Payable On Imported Goods Lost In Fire; Exemption Not Available: CESTAT New Delhi
Case Title: M/s Ajanta Soya Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51089 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported goods which are not used for manufacturing due to fire do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 and hence, customs duty is payable on such goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the assessee was liable to pay the customs duty on entire quantity of the Crude Palm Oil which was either lost in the fire accident or was found short along with interest.
Case Name: Western Geco International Ltd. vs. The Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal NO. 58089 OF 2013
The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Delhi has set aside service tax demand on offshore seismic survey (data acquisition) by Western Geco International Ltd., Gurugram (project office of Western Geco British Virgin Islands).
The Bench comprising of Mr. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Ms. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) examined if data acquired offshore and processing at the Mumbai project office would constitute two separate services. The CESTAT thus observed “Data analysis was not a separate service even though the cost of data analysis was indicated in the contract as 4% of the basic price.”
Case Title: M/s GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 51956 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee is ineligible for excise duty refund on ambulances, as it is neither a manufacturer nor a buyer under Section 11B(2)(e) Central Excise Act. The bench further noted that the assessee was merely operating the ambulances under a government agreement, which does not make him a manufacturer or buyer.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the assessee is not a manufacturer or a buyer of the Ambulances, the differential duty paid on which the assessee seeks to claim as a refund. The Ambulances are not registered in their names. They are not the owners of the vehicles.
Case Title: M/s Chemspark India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-I
Custom Appeal No. 86827 of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has set aside the absolute confiscation of imported goods ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that once the goods had already been re-exported prior to the filing of the Revenue appeal, the order for absolute confiscation of goods is not sustainable in law.
The Bench of Member (Judicial) Ajay Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeal). The Bench stated that without taking into account that the re-export of the goods in issue had already taken place prior to the filing of the appeal by Revenue. Once the goods have been re-exported certainly they were not available for confiscation. As per settled position of law that where the goods are no longer available for confiscation, such confiscation cannot be ordered, except where they have been cleared under bond etc. which is not the case herein.
Case Title: Sojitz India private limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 87356 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai has stated that the commission earned for acting as Indenting agent to its foreign group companies qualifies as 'Export of Services', and therefore is not liable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench comprising Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban set aside the ₹2.77 crore service tax demand (along with interest and penalty) confirmed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Thane Rural.
Peanut Butter Similar To Margarine; Not Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax Rangareddy - GST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 27780 of 2013
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Peanut Butter is similar to Margarine in terms of usage, origin, fat content, etc. and therefore not eligible for excise duty exemption.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) examined whether Peanut Butter could be considered similar to Margarine. If found similar, then it would not be exempt from excise duty; and if not similar, the exemption would apply.
Revenue Cannot Treat Turnover Mismatch As Duty Evasion Without Examining On Merits: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Gold Seal Engineering Products Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Navi Mumbai Commissionerate
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 87141 of 2023
The CESTAT Mumbai has held that when an assessee shows sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal within the statutorily permissible condonable period of 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reject the appeal on limitation without examining the merits.
A Bench of the CESTAT comprising of Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban was hearing the appeal, challenging the order of the Commissioner(Appeal) whereby appeal of the assessee was dismissed as time-barred by 26 days and thereby the automatic confirmation of differential duty demand of ₹2,64,039 along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside ₹1 Crore Interest, Penalty On Hindustan Zinc For Reversed CENVAT Credit
Case Detail: Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. The Commissioner
Case No.: W.P.(C) 17723/2025
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside disallowance of CENVAT credit as well as interest and penalty worth about Rs. 1 crore for electricity wheeled out to sister concerns as well as to State Electricity Board.
In an order dated November 24, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (Principal Bench) and Smt. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) set aside six orders, notices creating excise duty demand on input and input services used in Captive Power Plant for generation of electricity. As for electricity sold to the State Electricity Board, the CESTAT from order passed by the Commissioner inferred that CENVAT credit had been reversed on monthly basis prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.
No Service Tax On Income Received From Joint Venture: CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside ₹5.72 Crore Demand
Case Title: M/s. Rahee Infratech Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76709 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an assessee's/partner's share of income from a joint venture is not consideration for any taxable service and therefore not liable to Service Tax.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the activities undertaken by a partner/co-venturer for the mutual benefit of the partnership/joint venture cannot be regarded as a service rendered by one person to another for consideration and therefore cannot be taxed.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 20476 of 2018
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bunker supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel to 'cable ship ASEAN explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT).
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the supplies of High Viscosity Furnace Oil (HVFO) made by Bharat Petroleum to the vessel 'Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer' qualify as duty-free exports under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 46/2001-CE(NT), or whether such supplies are liable to Central Excise duty as the vessel cannot be considered as a 'foreign-going vessel' under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Detail: Indian Tobacco Traders vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax Guntur - GST
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 30390 of 2018
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on Indian Tobacco Traders under the heading Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Service, as tobacco leaves were transported through individual truck owners.
In an order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising Mr. A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) clarified that even if a person had provided Goods Transport Service but has not issued the consignment note, Service Tax from that person cannot be recovered under the category of GTA. The CESTAT rejected the contention of the Service Tax Department that consignment notes may be, in any form like chit, bill even weighing slip given to the truck owner may be treated as consignment note.
No Service Tax On Cost Allocation For Pet-Care Products Of Mars International: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Title: M/s Mars International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Central Tax, Hyderabad - II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 22990 of 2014
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Mars International is not liable to service tax on cost allocations for developing pet-care products. The bench further opined that the arrangement with the group companies did not involve a service provider-service recipient relationship, and therefore, the service is not taxable.
ANGAD PRASAD (Judicial Member) and A.K. JYOTISHI (Technical Member) found that the Mars International/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of pet care products or acquires products from co-manufacture. The companies under the agreement are group companies; these companies are doing research for developing the pet care products in-house. Therefore, the services are not taxable under Section 65 (105) (za) of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s Omaxe Buildhome Limited vs. Commissioner of GST Delhi-East
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 50776 of 2018
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has held that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed the appeal against the order of Commissioner(appeals) filed by the assessee M/s Omaxe Buildhome Ltd., by stating that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked merely because the appellant had supressed the material facts and had contravened to provsions of the Finance Act. Thereby, setting aside the demand of service tax raised on car parking charges.
Case Title: BILT Graphics Paper Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85636 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and later discharged at Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” for the purpose of including it in the transaction value for levy of Central Excise duty.
A Division Bench of C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the demand raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with equal penalty under Section 11AC.
24K Oval Pendants Qualify As Gold Jewellery, Eligible For Duty Exemption: CESTAT Hyderabad
Case Detail: R.K. Digital Solutions vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad – GST
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 30206 of 2024
The Hyderabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a matter concerning import of oval shaped gold pendants, has favoured classification under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7113 1910 as 'articles of jewellery' instead of CTH 7108 1300 as 'semi-manufactured gold'
In a recent order dated November 28, 2025 the Bench comprising A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) and Mr. Angad Prasad (Judicial Member), examined the two competing tariff headings CTH 7108 (unwrought/semi-manufactured gold) and CTH 7113 (articles of jewellery). The CESTAT going by the General Rules of Interpretation held that oval shaped pendants with hook could be worn on the body as pendant and thus, qualified as “articles of jewellery”.
Case Title: M/s. Kalmar India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal Nos. 40368 to 40370 of 2021
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that delay by the refund authority in sanctioning a refund claim is 'sufficient cause' for excluding limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that ……The practical incapacity of the Refund-Sanctioning Officer to render an effective, reasoned decision within a reasonable time rendered that remedy ineffectual for timely redress. The prolonged inaction on the part of the Department constitutes a “sufficient cause” for excluding the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Case Title: Paul Foskey Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-V
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85569 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. to its overseas group entity Marriott Hong Kong qualify as export of services, and therefore cannot be subjected to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Member (Judicial) S.K. Mohanty and Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban allowed three connected appeals filed by Marriott India, and set aside the entire service tax demand, penalties, and interest confirmed by the Commissioner through Order-in-Original.
Case Title: M/s. Zuari Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No. 20591 of 2022
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that manufacturing and packaging of cement are works service contracts, not civil construction activities, and therefore CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit cannot be denied.
Regarding the allegation of ineligible CENVAT credit availed by the assessee on lease premium, the bench consists of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) found that since the disputed services were ultimately meant for accomplishing the objective of providing the output service, it cannot be said that since the phrase 'setting up' was specifically excluded in the inclusive part of definition of input service, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be denied.
Case Title: M/s Chauhan Enterprises v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70427 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services, such as meter reading, billing, and connection/disconnection of electricity, are ancillary services of transmission and distribution of electricity and service tax is not payable for these services.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) examined whether the services such as meter reading, collection of revenue, connection and disconnection of electricity supply would be covered under the scope of transmission and distribution of electricity as specified under Section 66D of the Negative List of Services of Finance Act, 1994.
Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Rent-A-Cab Services Provided To SEZ Units: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. PRR Travels v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42331 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax cannot be levied on rent-a-cab services provided to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units as per the overriding effect under Section 51 of the SEZ Act (The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the SEZ Act is a self-contained Act which provides exemptions on taxes, duties, cess, drawbacks and concessions on imports and exports of goods and on supply of services to the Developers and Units within a SEZ for carrying on authorised operations. Therefore, in terms of sections 51 and 26 of the SEZ Act, no notification is required to be issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, in this regard.
Case Title: M/s. Deccan Construction Company v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40931 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the construction of school and college buildings during 2008-2012 is not taxable as commercial or industrial construction service.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the construction of buildings for educational institutions, such as schools and colleges, during 2008–2012, is taxable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and whether educational institutions charging fees can be considered “commercial” for purposes of Section 65(25b).
Case Title: Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Case No: Excise Appeal No. 85519 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that sales tax deferred under a State incentive scheme and subsequently discharged by payment of its Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be treated as “sales tax not paid” so as to be added back to the transaction value for levy of central excise duty.
A Division Bench comprising C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Grindwell Norton Ltd. and set aside the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty confirmed under Sections 11A, 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Case Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that reassessment of Bills of Entry cannot be sought at a belated stage after clearance of goods merely to claim refund on the basis of a favourable Supreme Court judgment delivered in another assessee's case.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Minerva Enterprises and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, which had refused reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry cleared in 2015, stating that Both the provisions would go to indicate that after clearance of goods neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42213 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere paper trail or endorsed bills of entry without actual movement of goods is not enough to claim CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that mere creation of paperwork or paper trail to indicate movement of goods, or mere endorsement of Bills of Entry, is not sufficient to establish eligibility for credit. The essential conditions required for availing credit have therefore not been fulfilled.
Service Tax Not Payable On Royalty Received For Group Companies' Use Of Copyrighted Logo: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40635 and 40636 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not payable on royalty received for group companies' use of the copyrighted 'TTK' Logo founded by T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. (assessee).
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) examined whether the demand of service for the 'TTK' logo of the assessee used by its group companies under Intellectual Property Rights service is tenable.
Zinc EDTA Is Fertiliser, Not A Chemical; Lower Customs Duty Applicable: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Coromandel International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40440 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Zinc EDTA is classifiable as a fertiliser under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3105 9090, and not a chemical salt under CTI 29224990 as stated by the revenue.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) noted that Zinc EDTA contains Nitrogen, which is an essential fertilising element.
Case Title: NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research v. Commissioner of Central Excise, GST, Rohtak
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 60680 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh has held that revenue-sharing arrangements between a hospital and diagnostic service providers (DSPs) do not amount to provision of “Business Support Service” (BSS) under the Finance Act, 1994, and are therefore not liable to service tax.
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, NC Jindal Institute of Medical Care & Research, setting aside the service tax demand confirmed against the hospital for the period 2008–09 to 2013–14 . The Bench stated that mere providing of a building along with some basic amenities like electricity, water, sewage etc. cannot be qualified as 'support service' for running a business. These facilities are provided to enable the diagnostic service providers to render services as an integral part of healthcare services.
Case Title: M/s. Aravindh Eye Hospital v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42460 of 2014
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that staff reimbursement, training, and hospital management in a joint venture are not taxable under the service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that the receipts characterised as “royalty”/“management fee” are integrally connected with the provision of healthcare services and do not constitute a separate taxable Management or Business Consultancy Service. The payments are in substance revenue sharing for collaborative clinical management, and there is no element of service among the joint venture partners.
Case Title: M/s. Narru Guru Shantha Siva Kamal v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76453 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the foreign markings available on the gold biscuits are not sufficient to establish the smuggled nature of the gold.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the gold recovered from the assessee was neither established to be of foreign origin nor established to be smuggled in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the gold recovered from the assessee is not liable for confiscation.
Case Title: Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Cochin
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 20886 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has held that no Service Tax liability can be applied under the reverse charge mechanism on an Indian branch where the software maintenance services were contracted, received and consumed entirely outside India. The Tribunal further held that payments made towards hotel expenses of guests cannot be treated as taxable “Sponsorship Services”.
A Division Bench comprising P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Silk Air (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. and set aside the Service Tax demand along with penalties confirmed under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Detail: Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. Commissioner Central Tax
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demand on the activity of investing in Mutual Funds as such activities undertaken by Godfrey Phillips India Limited (Appellant) would be different from 'trading in securities' and cannot be considered as an exempted service in terms of section 66D(e) of the Finance Act.
In an order dated December 05, 2025 the Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Shri. P..V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that activity of subscription and redemption of units of Mutual Funds cannot be said to be an activity of sale and purchase of the securities and therefore, not an activity relating to trading and securities.
Case Title: Shri Srimanta Rakshit v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75674 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that separate proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible once CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018) proceedings are initiated.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that once separate proceedings have been initiated against the assessee under CBLR, 2018, for violation of the provisions of the said Regulations, no separate penalty is warranted on the assessee under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as no offence under the Customs Act, 1962, has been established against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s Eagle International v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75332 of 2023
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Customs cannot directly rely on NIDB (National Import Database) data to enhance import value.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the adjudicating authority straightaway has re-determined the value on the basis of NIDB data retrieved, indicating the Bill of Entry and the description of the goods, which is legally not maintainable.
Case Title: M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 51371 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of a Customs Broker licence, holding that mis-declaration of goods by the exporter, by itself, does not establish violation of obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.
A Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member – Technical) allowed the appeal filed by the assesse, M/s Silver Line Global Freight Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the order of the Commissioner of Customs revoking the broker's licence, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty.
Refund Cannot Be Denied When CA Certificate & Ledger Confirms Excess Excise Duty: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77195 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of excess excise duty since both the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the ledger clearly established that the duty was paid in excess and was never passed on to any third party.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) observed that the assessee has filed a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, which certifies that excise duty has not been passed on to any third party and was also shown as receivable from the Government of India.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Limited v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 77011 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that railway receipts and STTG (Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods) Certificates are valid documents for taking CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit even prior to 27.08.2014.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the STTG Certificates issued by the Railways have been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However, railway receipts, which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, continue to be a relevant document for the availment of credit prior to and after 27.08.2014 also.
Case Title: M/s. Jennex Granite Industries v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41068 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, the term 'prohibition' includes both complete and partial restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy. Hence, restricted goods imported without fulfilling mandatory conditions are treated as prohibited, which attracts confiscation and a penalty.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Technical Member) noted that once the goods are restricted, either subject to any conditions or otherwise, they become prohibited goods if the condition is not complied with.
Import Of Technical Designs Not 'Design Service'; No Extended Limitation Or Penalty: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III
Appeal Nos.: ST/87589/2013 & ST/87590/2013
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has delivered a significant ruling holding that import of technical know-how, engineering drawings and designs transferred permanently for manufacturing in India cannot be taxed as “Design Services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) set aside the entire Service Tax demand of ₹21.79 crore, along with interest and penalties, confirming that the transaction was an outright purchase of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and not a taxable service.
Case Title: M/s. Terai Overseas Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 76508 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that knitted ready-made garments, such as Gents' shirts, Ladies' dresses, and coats, are classifiable under CTH 6102; hence, the exporters are entitled to a 10% drawback rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that from the descriptions of the goods as contained in the concerned shipping bills, it can be observed that the said goods, mostly including 'Gents shirts', 'Ladies dress', 'Ladies long coat', 'Ladies blouse', etc., are in the nature of knitted readymade garments, which squarely fall under the CTH 6102 as mentioned in the Public Notice No. 5/1995, which deals with 'ready-made garments'. Under the said entry pertaining to CTH 6102, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value subject to a maximum of Rs. 45/- per piece.
Case Title: Paramount Dyes and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85305 of 2017
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that commission received in India for facilitating sales of goods for foreign suppliers amounts to “export of service” and cannot be taxed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
A Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the Service Tax demand, interest, and penalties relating to the period 2004–2009.
Case Title: SMV Beverages Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 86054 of 2015
In a significant relief to SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has held that incentives received from Pepsi Foods for advertising and promotional activities cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The Tribunal followed a Larger Bench ruling which categorically held that section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member), while allowing the appeal, of the assessee stated that the appellant was promoting the trademark/brand name of Pepsi Foods, but section 65(19) of the Finance Act does not cover promotion of brand name or trademark of a client. It cannot, therefore, be urged that BAS was provided by the appellant to Pepsi Foods.
Case Title: Shri Surendra Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.70033 of 2024
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that goods cannot be confiscated merely on the basis of a local market survey or opinion in the absence of proof of smuggling. The Tribunal observed that the burden to prove that the goods are smuggled lies on the department.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that the Department has not discharged its burden. Since betel nuts are also produced in India. In the absence of any evidence that confiscated goods were illegally smuggled into India, the same cannot be confiscated merely based on local market survey/opinion.
Case Title: M/s Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Meerut-I
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.70294 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that storing finished goods outside the factory premises due to space constraints is connected with the assessee's business operation. Therefore, CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit on 'warehousing services' is admissible as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and cannot be denied.
P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) stated that how a business has to be run cannot be dictated by the officers of the Department, and it should be left to the prerogative and wisdom of the business enterprises to address their business exigencies in the best possible manner, and the options available to them.
Case Title: J Uthaman v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40567 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act cannot be imposed unless the department proves mens rea and a clear act of abetment with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that Section 114 has a penal character of being a penalty in personam, placing the burden squarely on the Customs Department to establish the guilt.
Case Title: M/s. Face IT Systems LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.76501 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Face Recognition Access Control Systems perform data processing functions, such as data storage, read-write memory operations and automated processing, and therefore qualify as an Automatic Data Processing Machine under CTH 8471. The bench clarified that these systems are eligible for NIL customs duty exemption.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) noted that the Access Controller Face Recognition System has read and write memory, has 4 GB RAM, 64 GB nano flash, is capable of processing program, can read from camera, card and QR code and there is embedded Linux Operating System. It is capable for automatic face detection even with mask. The configuration and functions show that there cannot be any doubt that the device has all the functions qualifying to be classified as Automatic Data Processing Machine.
Customs | Import Duty Must Be Determined At Time Of Import, Not On Later Sale Price: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41046 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that customs duty is required to be assessed on the transaction value declared at the time of import, as reflected in the supplier's invoice. Any subsequent sale or higher remittance made after the import cannot be relied upon to reject the declared value.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether the addition under the guise of short-payment of duty, which related to the actual remittances made by the assessee/HDFC Bank to its foreign suppliers as compared to the declared/transaction value at the time of import, is justified or not.
Case Title: M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 42458 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that service tax cannot be levied on membership and participation fees paid to foreign associations such as International Packaging Group (IPG) or International Packaging Forum Network (IPFN) for the period prior to 01.07.2012.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri (Technical Member) stated that the demand for the period prior to 1.7.2012 on IPG/IFPN is unsustainable as there was no evidence that these bodies are mere association of persons and not imported neither have rendered any services to the appellant and the condition of relationship of service recipient with the service provider is absent.
Service Tax | Tax Paid Under Wrong Service Category Cannot Be Demanded Again: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85614 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand raised against the assesse, holding that once service tax has already been paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, merely under a wrong service category, the department cannot demand the same tax again.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), granting consequential relief to the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Dharanidhar Ghosh v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75242 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a mere allegation by a co-accused that the assessee handed over gold cannot serve as the sole basis for imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The bench clarified that in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence supporting this claim, the statement of the co-accused is not sufficient to implicate the assessee in the said offence.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that in the absence of any independent corroboration, such an exculpatory statement of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating the assessee in the alleged offence and imposition of penalty on him.
Case Title: M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Air)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40959 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that merely sending imported goods to a job worker for manufacture does not violative exemption conditions. Since there was no allegation of the sale of goods, the exemption of benefit under Notification No. 73/2006-Cus dated 10.07.2006 cannot be denied to Godrej.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) observed that neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order alleged that the assessee had sold the imported goods to the job worker. In the absence of any such allegation, merely dispatching the goods to a job worker for manufacture cannot be a ground to deny the exemption benefit.
Case Title: M/s. WR Grace & Co. India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 42318 of 2015
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not submitted in a prescribed or revised format.
The bench opined that the format prescribed under the public notice is only indicative, and once the assessee has produced documents evidencing payment of VAT/CST, the refund cannot be denied merely due to a technical lapse in the format of the Chartered Accountant certificate.
Case Title: Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Patna
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.79423 of 2018
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that seizure of goods cannot be sustained merely on the assumption that they were intended for export through non-specified routes. In the absence of any corroborative evidence establishing intent to export illegally, such presumption alone is insufficient to justify such seizure.
Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) opined that the mere presumption that the goods were meant for export to Nepal through other than the specified routes cannot be a valid reason to uphold the seizure in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to the said effect.
Case Detail: Ashutosh Metal Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirmed demand of service tax on commission earned on account of sale of agricultural produce, Indian Raw Cotton under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
The CESTAT upheld order by the lower authority fastening service tax liability of ₹71.75 lakhs and ₹90.56 lakhs for the periods 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.
Case Title: M/S KEC International
Case No.: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a service tax demand of ₹18.95 crore raised against the assessee, KEC International, holding that the Department wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation without establishing any intent to evade tax .
A Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Panchkula. solely on limitation grounds, holding that the extended period under Section 73 cannot be invoked without proven mens rea deliberate fraud, suppression with evasion intent, or willful misstatement as mandated by Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (1995) 78 ELT 401 (SC).
Case Title: M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50848 of 2025
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the cancellation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that the broker helped export prohibited goods by filing documents in the name of a firm that had never hired it.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Member–Technical) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
Customs Act | No Time Bar For Shipping Bill Conversion Under Section 149: CESTAT Mumbai
Case Title: Commissioner of customs, Nhava Sheva-II Vs. ADF Foods Ltd.
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87408 of 2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against ADF Foods Ltd., holding that exporters can seek conversion of shipping bills from one export incentive scheme to another even after several years, as long as the law does not prescribe any time limit.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) upheld the earlier relief granted to the exporter and confirmed that the Revenue could not reopen the issue once it had already been settled by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 86159 of 2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a penalty imposed on a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA), holding that merely claiming an exemption or classification as per the importer's instructions does not amount to misdeclaration or misconduct.
A Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd., a Customs Broker, and quashed the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act stating that Customs Brokers cannot be punished for bona fide classification claims made on the basis of importer instructions and available records, particularly when the importer ultimately succeeds on merits.
Case Title: Nico Extrusions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85057 of 2020, Customs Appeal No. 85085 of 2020
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside orders enhancing the value of scrap consignments merely on the basis of National Import Data Base (NIDB) data and a Directorate General of Valuation (DGoV) circular.
A Bench comprising Mr. S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and Mr. M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that the customs authorities could not discard the declared transaction value without strictly following Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and that mere comparison with NIDB data or reliance on the DGoV circular was insufficient to justify enhancement.
Services Performed Outside India Not Taxable Under RCM; No Import Of Services: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Intellect Design Arena Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40357 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that services performed outside India are not liable to service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), even if payments are made by an Indian entity or involve group companies. The bench further opined that reimbursements to foreign subsidiaries do not constitute “import of services” in the absence of any service rendered by the assessee.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when services are performed outside India, even if the payment is made by an Indian entity or the contract involves group companies, the services are not taxable in India.
Case Title: M/s. GE T&D India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40763 of 2018
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the captive exemption under Notification 67/95-CE remains available even if the final product is partly cleared on duty payment and partly under exemption.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that captive exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE is available to the relays captively used in the manufacture of control panels cleared on payment of duty, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.41180 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that while computing the amount of CENVAT credit to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, only credit pertaining to common input services is required to be considered.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether cenvat credit of input services exclusively used for a dutiable product should be taken or the total cenvat credit of only common input service should be taken for the purpose of calculating the cenvat credit for reversal in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Central Excise | Packaged Drinking Water Cannot Be Assessed On MRP Basis U/S 4A: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: M/s. Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 41775 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that packaged drinking water is not liable to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act unless it is specifically covered by a statutory notification.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) examined whether packaged drinking water is to be assessed on MRP basis under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Mumbai Grants Major Relief To Capgemini; Holds IT/ITES Services Eligible For CENVAT Credit
Case Title: Capgemini Technology Services India Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Mumbai East Commissionerate
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 86740 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has partly allowed an appeal filed by Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., holding that most of the input services used in provision of Information Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services output services qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bench comprising Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban noted that Capgemini is engaged in providing IT and IT enabled services and avails CENVAT credit on input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Case Title: Drive India Enterprises Solutions Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85417 of 2022
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed an appeal filed by Drive India Enterprises Solutions Ltd., setting aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which had rejected a refund of excess countervailing duty (CVD) paid on imported mobile handsets.
A Bench comprising Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Member (Technical) M.M. Parthiban held that once the Bills of Entry were reassessed and amended by the proper officer under Section 17 read with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the statutory requirement for claiming refund under Section 27 stood fully satisfied.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Case Number: SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10521 of 2019-DB
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Reliance Industries Ltd. is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on insurance services on a proportionate basis for the period on or after 01.07.2003, when Business Auxiliary Service became taxable.
Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Cenvat credit is admissible on insurance services received during the period when output service (i.e. Business Auxiliary Service) was out of the tax net.
Case Title: M/s Embellishment v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70208 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that in the absence of any documentary break-up between service receipts and retail sale of goods, the entire receipts of the Lakme Franchise beauty salon are liable to service tax.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that no Notes on Accounts, which would have been part of the audited balance sheet/ profit and loss account, showing the proceeds from the sale of goods have been produced during the entire proceedings. In profit and loss account the receipts are shown under the head “Receipts from Beauty Salon”, No break up is available. In absence of any assumption the authorities have rightly presumed that the entire receipts are in respect of provision of services.
Case Title: M/s Bhagwati Products ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Noida
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 70604 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed appeals thereby upholding the Customs Department's decision rejecting the company's applications for a private warehousing licence and permission to carry out manufacturing operations under the Customs Act, 1962.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava was hearing the appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Noida, which had denied licences sought under Section 58 (private warehouse) read with the Private Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016 (PWLR), along with permission under Section 65 for manufacture and other operations.
Case Title: M/s. Neelamber Catters Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 75161 of 2024
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside service tax demands and denial of CENVAT credit raised holding that the issues were already settled in the assessee's favour in an earlier decision.
A Bench comprising Technical Member K. Anpazhakan was hearing an appeal challenging the appellate order which had upheld service tax demands of ₹2.84 lakh and reversal of CENVAT credit of ₹1.44 lakh. The demand related to alleged service tax liability under reverse charge on manpower supply services and on remuneration paid to a director, along with consequent denial of CENVAT credit.
Case Detail: Orchid Bio-Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun
The Delhi Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Dietary Supplements were not food products, not pharmaceuticals, hence not eligible for area-based excise exemption.
A Bench comprising Smt. Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Shri. P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Pharmaceutical Company by upholding demand of ₹1.63 crore duty with interest as well as penalty equal to duty on the Company and personal penalty on Plant Head.
Case Title: Anil Kumar, Proprietor of Gajraj Hosiery Factory v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 60100 of 2018
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that imported ponchos are correctly reclassified under CTH 6102 as capes, rejecting the assessee's claim of them being scarves.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that when the expert has given a report on the impugned goods, the same cannot be brushed aside without any substantial evidence to counter the same.
Filing Appeal Before Wrong Appellate Authority No Ground For Condonation: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title: M/s Ganga Telecom v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70660 of 2025
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the filing of an appeal before the wrong appellate authority does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) opined that the assessee had been duly informed about the jurisdiction in which the appeal was to be filed, and therefore, there could be no error in this regard. The claim of the assessee that the right appeal should not be effected for his own mistakes, and such arguments are not admissible for this reason.
Case Detail: Payal Synthetics Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that export restrictions on garnet, whether found along beaches or inland places without involving canalising agency i.e. Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) was banned.
In a recent ruling, the coram of Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) referred to a 2020 Circular issued by the Department of Atomic Energy to state that DGFT imposed restriction through a Notification dealt with sensitive materials seen from the perspective of national security and canalized exports through designated agencies only.
Case Title: M/s OSC Export Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 141 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that revenue cannot reclassify input services or deny CENVAT credit at the stage of sanctioning a refund, without first challenging the assessment or invoking Rule 14 of the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) Credit Rules, 2004.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) opined that it is not open for the Revenue to decide the classification of input service or to decide the eligibility of such input service at the time of sanctioning the refund.
Case Title: M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited Vs. Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Adjudication Cell)
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 50804 of 2021
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside a service tax demand of over ₹18.84 crore against assessee, holding that the sale of food and beverages such as popcorn, snacks and soft drinks at cinema counters amounts to sale of goods and does not involve any element of “service” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao was hearing an appeal filed by M/s Cinepolis India Private Limited against an order passed by the Additional Director General of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), which had confirmed service tax demand, interest and penalty by treating the sale of food and drinks inside multiplexes as a “declared service” under Section 66E of the Finance Act.
Case Title: M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.70718 of 2021
The Allahabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked when the assessee has regularly disclosed CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in ST-3 returns and furnished complete details while filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that it is also evident from the format of the return date appellant was only required to declare the total credit taken during the period of return under various heads, without detailing credit taken against specific service or the invoices. Even otherwise, when these invoices, all the documents were submitted alongwith the refund claim under Rule 5, authorities should have worked out and made the demand rather than waiting for another three years.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Petronas v. The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40128 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that when the availment of CENVAT credit is duly disclosed in statutory ER-1 returns and the assessee has regularly paid excise duty, allegations of suppression within the intent to evade duty cannot be sustained.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that when the payment of duty remains undenied, and there is also no denial of the returns being filed by the assessee regularly, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression, that too with intent to evade duty, which could be alleged against the assessee.
Case Title: M/s S. Chatterjee & Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.75962 of 2017
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that works contract service provided to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) examined whether the works contract service provided by the assessee to Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) for transmission or distribution of electricity is liable to service tax or not.
Case Title: M/s. Agni Steels Pvt. Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 41254 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that remuneration paid to whole-time directors does not constitute a taxable service. Consequently, service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) is not leviable.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that the remuneration paid to the Directors constitutes “salary” under an employer–employee relationship and is therefore not exigible to service tax.
No Service Tax Payable On Laying Of Cables Under Or Alongside Roads: CESTAT Kolkata
Case Title: M/s. Precision Trenchless Laying Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 76555 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that consideration received for laying of underground telecom/optical fibre cables under or alongside roads is not liable to service tax.
Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) opined that the entire demand confirmed in the impugned order under these specific categories is not liable to Service Tax, as all the amounts received by the assessee pertain to laying of cables under or alongside roads, which is not leviable to Service Tax as clarified by C.B.E.C. vide Circular No. 123/5/2010‑TRU.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40648 of 2017
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that once benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures (HBP) are granted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the same cannot be nullified by Customs through Notifications or Circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Ajayan T.V (Judicial Member) and Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that if the Central Government in its wisdom introduces a beneficial scheme or provision under the FTDR Act, the benefit of such legislation are to be made available by another Department of Central Government, namely the Customs Department, for which purpose Notifications and Circulars are issued under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Name: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in a matter involving similarity of Muscle Relaxant sold domestically vis-à-vis exported by a Pharma major and benefit concessional duty thereof, has remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, cleared/sold multiple products in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) at concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated March 31,2003. As an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) can clear goods in DTA upto 50% of Free-On-Board (FOB) value of their physical exports i.e. a post-export entitlement.
Case Detail: Charotar Gas Sahkari Mandali Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Tax-Vadodara
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 12621 of 2019- DB
The Ahmedabad Bench, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand of service tax by treating payment of Rs. 60 lakhs to Vallabh Vidhyanagar Municipal Corporation as rent arrears and not consideration for tolerating/refraining from an act.
The Bench comprising, Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) and Mr. Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) examined whether Rs. 60 lakhs paid to Municipal Administration of Vallabh Vidhyanagar i.e. Vallabh Vidhyanagar Nagar Palika was 'Consideration' towards tolerating an act or outstanding dues towards Rent. They clarified that once the recipient Nagar Palika had treated the amount as 'Rent' on which they also paid service tax, service tax could not be paid on the said amount again on reverse charge basis under the category of Declared Service.
Profit From Securitisation/Sell-Down Of Loan Receivables Not Taxable As Service: CESTAT Chennai
Case Title: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40272 of 2022
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that profit earned from securitisation or sell-down of loan receivables, including upfront fees and excess spread income, being in the nature of income arising from the sale of receivables, is not exigible to service tax.
Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that there is no element of service in respect of the incomes received in the form of upfront fee and Excess Spread Income on Sell down, which are essentially income generated through sale of future receivables, and service tax cannot be demanded on the same.
Case Title: M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42240 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that cutting and slitting of HR-CR coils does not amount to manufacture and therefore, payment of duty on such non-excisable activity cannot create a legal fiction to treat it as excisable. The bench further held that CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit availed in respect of such activity is inadmissible, even if duty was paid.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) stated that if there is no manufacturing activity, the question of availment of input credit does not arise. Here, no manufacturing activity existed at all during 2010–2015. Therefore, the HR/CR coils fail the very existential requirement of input under Rule 2(k). The Payment of duty on non-manufactured goods cannot legitimise the credit.
Case Title: M/s. RN Chidakashi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40655 of 2023
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the AI-powered MIKO-3 smart robot performs the essential function of Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Machines and cannot be classified as an electronic toy merely because it offers learning or entertainment features.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) observed that the Revenue has not discharged its burden of disproving the classification declared by the Assessee, and also not established with evidence as to its attempt to re-classify the goods in question as “electronic toys” alone.
Case Title: M/s. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 40785 and 40786 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that excess duty paid on PCMX (Para-Chloro-Meta-Xylenol) used for manufacturing Dettol products is refundable, as the prices of products were controlled by the Government. The bench opined that under such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply.
Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) opined that when prices are controlled by the government, the manufacturers cannot charge any amount over the fixed price determined by the government. Consequently, any excess duty determined to be in excess consequent to finalisation of provisional assessment cannot be treated as having passed on the duty burden to another person, and the question of unjust enrichment does not arise.
Case Title: M/s. Sandor Medicaids Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 87321 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that I-STAT blood gas cartridges are accessories used solely with the I-STAT analyser and cannot be classified independent diagnostic reagents. Consequently, the cartridges follow the classification of the analyser, the differential duty is not payable.
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) held that since the glucometer strips have the same function of the Cartridges that are used in the I STAT analyser, accordingly the products are rightly classifiable under CTH 9027.
Case Title: M/s Proffer IT Consultancy Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (ACC Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51783 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that handheld barcode scanners, whose principal function is scanning, do not become smartphones merely because they have ancillary mobile features. The bench further stated that these scanners are entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that in the documents on record in the form of brochures, invoices, packing list etc., the imported goods are described as a Handheld Scanners. They are known as such to trade. Hence, there is no reason to hold that the product is smart phone merely because the product has an ancillary function of being used a smart phone.
Case Title: M/s Muchipara Consumers Co-Operative Stores Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51577 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that confiscated/seized cigarettes which do not comply with mandatory packaging, labelling and legal metrology requirements cannot be released for home consumption and therefore could not have been validly auctioned. Since the auction is vitiated, forfeiture of the security deposit is unsustainable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that the auction notice may have required the assessee to perform certain acts but when the mandatory condition specified in the Rules and the Circular are not satisfied on the cigarettes packets that have been confiscated, the cigarette packets cannot be released in favour of the assessee and have to be destroyed.