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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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”.