HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCAllahabad High Court Directs Criminal Contempt Against GST Official For Filing Misleading Personal AffidavitCase Title: Adboulevard Media Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, Grade-2(Appeal) First, State Tax, Meerut And AnotherOn Thursday, Allahabad High Court directed initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Additional Commissioner,...
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
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.”
Bombay HC
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.
Calcutta HC
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).
Chhattisgarh HC
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
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.
Software Receipts Can't Be Taxed On PE Assumption Already Rejected By ITAT: Delhi High Court
Case title: Zscaler Inc v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10556/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that software receipts cannot be subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS) on the assumption of a Permanent Establishment (PE) when such an assumption has already been rejected by ITAT, setting aside a withholding certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by Zscaler Inc, a US-based software company, challenging the Assessing Officer's order granting TDS certificate (withholding certificate) under Section 197 at 8.75% on payments received from company's Indian customers.
Case title: Rajesh Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 31 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12433/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120-day period prescribed under the second proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deciding an assessee's request for release of seized assets is not mandatory, and a decision taken beyond the said period does not automatically become invalid.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar was dealing with a petition challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release jewellery seized during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.
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.
Delhi High Court Holds ICC Trademark Rights Under LG Sponsorship Agreement Attract Royalty TDS
Case Title: M/S LG Electronics India P.Ltd & Anr. Vs. Director of Income Tax(International Taxation) & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 15181/2004
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Income Tax Department's decision to treat a portion of sponsorship payments made for ICC cricket events as taxable royalty.
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar refused to interfere with an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which had held that one-third of the USD 11 million paid by LG to Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), Singapore, was attributable to the “right to use” ICC trademarks and logos, and therefore liable to tax as royalty at 15% under Section 9(1)(vi) read with the India–Singapore DTAA.
Gauhati HC
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.
Himachal Pradesh HC
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 And Ladakh HC
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: 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: 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.
Kerala HC
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
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
Case Title: The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: T.C.A.No.285 of 2021
The Madras High Court held that the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee under a government rehabilitation scheme is a capital receipt and is not taxable as revenue.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G. Arul Murugan examined whether the grant-in-aid/subsidy received by the assessee from the Government under the rehabilitation scheme should be treated as a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee or as a capital receipt, taking it out of the purview of the taxable income.
Case Title: K.M. Mammen v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P. No. 24029 of 2025
The Madras High Court held that once the assessee's entitlement to compounding had attained finality through earlier orders, then the Income Tax Department could not apply the revised Compounding Guidelines.
Justice C. Saravanan referred to the Explanation to Section 279(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and noted that the new compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv.V) would apply, only if a new application is/was filed in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the said guidelines.
Patna HC
Case Title: Rajnandani Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 206 of 2023
The Patna High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in restoring an addition of ₹1.91 crore under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after reversing a reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the assessee had produced documentary evidence and the Assessing Officer's remand report did not disclose any adverse material.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that the Tribunal interfered with the appellate order without demonstrating perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard, and in doing so, effectively placed a burden on the assessee beyond what is contemplated under Section 68 of the Act.
Punjab & Haryana HC
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.
Rajasthan HC
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.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Rajan Rajesh Kumar
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 OF 2024
The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction.
Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Rimita Mukherjee
Case Number: WBAAR 15 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that digitalisation, GIS mapping, monitoring, data management and technical consultancy services provided to the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) in connection with water supply schemes qualify as “pure services” and are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Notification No. 12/2017.
The Authority ruled that such services are directly related to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution, particularly those concerning drinking water and sanitation.
Case Title: Vodafone West Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(1)(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 671/AHD/2015 and ITA No. 1634/AHD/2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that multiple additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained in law. The Bench held that the transfer of passive telecom tower assets pursuant to a court-approved demerger amounted to a genuine “gift” under Section 47(iii), and the Assessing Officer could not artificially impute consideration or deny depreciation.
It further ruled that roaming services do not involve human intervention so as to qualify as “technical services”, and therefore no TDS was deductible u/s 194J, rendering the consequential disallowance unsustainable.
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.
GSTAT Directs Builder To Return Over ₹20 Lakhs Benefit To Diya Greencity Homebuyers With Interest
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Diya Greencity Private Limited, Project-Diya Greencity
Case No.: NAPA/91/PB/2025
The Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Anti Profiteering Division at Delhi has directed the Builder to return ₹20,21,440 out of the Amount not passed on, along with interest to the homebuyers of Diya Greencity Project.
In a recent order, a Division Bench comprising, Shri. Mayank Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shri. Anil Kumar Gupta (Technical Member) verified that benefit of about ₹13 crores to 1177 eligible homebuyers had been passed on but “No benefit has been passed to 21 homebuyers”
Case Title: Ex Servicemen Resettlement Society
Case Number: WBAAR 22 of 2025-26
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that security and scavenging services provided to government-run medical colleges and hospitals qualify as “pure services” and are exempt from Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Notification No. 12/2017.
The Authority held that services essential to the functioning of public hospitals, when supplied without any element of goods, fall within activities relating to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution.
US Government Pension Received In India Not Taxable Under India-USA DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title: Jeanne Lee Cantrill v. DCIT, Circle-67(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6322/Del/2025 | AY 2016–17
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that pension received by a US national from a US government retirement fund cannot be taxed in India merely because the amount was received here, as the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) grants exclusive taxing rights to the United States.
A Bench comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), while hearing the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016–17, examined whether pension received from a United States government retirement fund by an American national working in India could be subjected to tax in India, despite the specific exemption available under Article 19(2) of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
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.
GSTAT Withdraws Staggered Filing Requirement for GST Second Appeals; Allows Unrestricted E-Filing
Order Number: 315/2025
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has withdrawn the requirement of staggered filing of Goods and Services Tax (GST) second appeals, allowing appeals to be filed without any phase-wise or date-based restriction.
Through an order dated December 16, 2025, issued by the President of the Tribunal, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, GSTAT revoked its earlier order dated September 24, 2025, which had mandated staggered filing of appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the corresponding State and Union Territory GST Acts.
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 Name: National Foundation for Corporate Governance vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4),
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a Trust that had accumulated Income for Financial Year 2016-2017 to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and deleted addition of ₹37,99,090.
In a recent order, a Division Bench, comprising Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Shri Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) on effect of amendment restricting the accumulation period for income of charitable/religious trusts under Section 11, it was clarified that the Trust had retained the right to utilize funds till March 31, 2023.
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.
Film Broadcasting Licence Fees Not Royalty Under India–Mauritius DTAA: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: M/s Asia Today Limited Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 2(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 1403/M/2008 A.Y.: 2004-2005
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal, holding that the consideration received for granting non-exclusive broadcasting rights of Hindi feature films does not constitute “royalty” taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara was hearing the appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to tax ₹1 crore received from licensing film broadcasting rights as royalty.
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 Title: ACIT Vs. Mallics Jewels
Case No.: I.T.A No. 312/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an appellate order deleting a ₹2.75 crore addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
A Bench comprising Vice President Kul Bharat and Accountant Member Anadee Nath Mishra was hearing the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had earlier deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of a jewellery firm for Assessment Year 2017–18.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has imposed Anti-Dumping Duty on imports of “2-Ethyl Hexanol” from European Union, Indonesia, Korea RP, Malaysia, Taiwan and United States of America till June 26, 2026.
2-Ethyl Hexanol. 2-Ethyl Hexanol is a basic organic chemical. It is produced on a massive scale for use in numerous applications such as solvents, flavours, and fragrances and especially as a precursor for production of other chemicals such as emollients and plasticizers.