More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-1273-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption from central excise duty on manufactured goods supplied through intermediary - Interpretation of condition requiring proof to satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise that goods are cleared for intended use - Appellant, a job worker, manufactured Aluminium Baxter Flyer without payment of central excise duty, claiming exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 superseded by Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - The principal manufacturer supplied the goods for the intended use after subjecting them to further processing - Department issued Notice to demand duty along with interest and equal penalty contending that the appellant had not fulfilled condition 2 of the exemption notification - Whether goods manufactured by a job worker can be eligible for exemption under the notification even when the goods are further processed and subsequently supplied to the ultimate user by the principal manufacturer and whether non-intimation to the jurisdictional officer regarding clearance without payment of duty results in denial of the exemption benefit - HELD - Baxter Flyer is a crucial component used exclusively in the jute industry as a part of jute spinning frames and can only be used in a jute mill for making jute textile and cannot be used elsewhere - The condition 2 of the exemption notification requires that the goods be cleared for the intended use specified in the notification, which is goods required by a jute mill for making jute textiles - The expression intended for use is sufficiently wide to cover situations where goods manufactured by the appellant are ultimately used in a jute mill after undergoing some process of further treatment at the hands of the principal manufacturer - The Appellant has fulfilled the condition by ensuring that the goods were ultimately used only in jute mills for making jute textiles as evidenced by the invoices submitted by the Appellant showing that the principal cleared the goods to jute mills and the department has not produced any evidence to the contrary - The exemption notification does not prescribe any condition requiring prior or post intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise officer regarding clearance of the goods without payment of duty and non-intimation to the jurisdictional officer can at the maximum be considered only as a procedural breach and the same cannot result in denial of the exemption benefit as procedural law is always subservient to and in aid to justice - The Department has wrongly interpreted the condition by importing a requirement of prior permission from the jurisdictional officer which is not prescribed in the notification itself - The demand of central excise duty is not sustainable and set aside - The questions of demanding interest or imposing penalty do not arise as the duty demanded is not sustainable - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-714-RAJ-CE | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Eligibility for declaration under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme - Scope of SVLDR Scheme under Finance Act 2019 – The Order-in-Original directed confiscation of MS Ingots and granted option to redeem goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Petitioner also imposed penalty - During pendency of second appeal before CESTAT, SVLDRS, 2019 was introduced - Petitioner filed declaration under SVLDR Scheme seeking settlement of arrears - Designated Committee rejected declaration on ground that redemption fine does not fall within scope of SVLDR Scheme rendering petitioner ineli... [Read more]

2026-VIL-717-PAT | High Court SGST

GST - Service of notice on portal, Clean hand Doctrine, Ex-parte order - Demand for excess claim of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner challenge Show Cause Notice and summary of orders on ground of being ex-parte order and non-compliance with requirement of Section 169 of CGST Act as the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on GST portal under heading ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab which is not proper compliance - HELD – The petitioner is silent on merit on allegations that petitioner had availed huge amount of excess Input Tax Credit - Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 clearly states ITC as per GSTR-2A whereas ITC claimed in GSTR-3B was significantly higher – The Writ application is also silent on ground stated in Notice which talks of excess claim of Input Tax Credit and suppression of turnover - Despite clear assertion in summary of order that last reminder was sent on registered mail, petitioner has not made specific and categorical statement that no email was received by petitioner on registered email ID - Since petitioner is seeking quashing of SCN and summary of order, it was incumbent upon petitioner to state on fact actual accrual of ITC present in GSTR-2A – Further, the statement of petitioner that petitioner got information about bank attachment much later when he visited jurisdictional office of respondents and copies of notices and orders were obtained at even later date upon perusal of portal subsequent to signing of alleged undertaking letter is nothing but an afterthought - This writ application has been filed after three months from date of execution of undertaking and submission of three post-dated cheques - There is nothing on record to take view that for more than three months after execution of undertaking and submission of post-dated cheques, petitioner could not have raised any protest or preferred appeal against impugned SCN and impugned summary of order. This is not bonafide writ application. Writ remedy is meant for those who come clean before this Court - In facts of this case, plenary and discretionary jurisdiction of issuance of extraordinary writ is not fit to be exercised - Conduct of petitioner is such that it requires dismissal of writ application with cost - Writ application is dismissed with cost [Read less]

2026-VIL-40-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-profiteering – Relevant date for reckoning of Project completion date – Whether, for the purposes of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, project completion should be reckoned from the date of actual issuance of Occupancy Certificate or from the date of filing of application seeking such certificate – HELD - A project is deemed to be completed only upon actual grant of Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority and not upon mere filing of an application therefor - The submission that construction was completed on filing of application for Occupancy Certificate is devoid of merit - In the present case Occupancy Certificate was granted during the post-GST period and the Respondent continued to avail Input Tax Credit during the relevant period which clearly establishes that the project was ongoing in the post-GST period - The contention is rejected - Period of investigation for Anti-profiteering matter - Methodology for Computation of profiteered amount - Whether the DGAP correctly restricted the period of investigation to the period from introduction of GST till issuance of Occupancy Certificate and whether the methodology adopted for computation of profiteered amount is legally sustainable as per Section 171 – HELD – The Schedule III and Section 17 of CGST Act make it evident that sale of units after issuance of Occupancy Certificate is treated as exempt supply and falls outside purview of taxable supply and ITC attributable to such supplies is not available and is liable to be reversed - Since anti-profiteering provisions operate only where benefit of input tax credit accrues to supplier and is required to be passed on to recipients, no profiteering can arise in respect of units sold after issuance of Occupancy Certificate as no admissible input tax credit benefit survives in relation to such units - Investigation must be confined to period up to date of issuance of Occupancy Certificate - The DGAP correctly restricted the period of investigation to the relevant period representing duration during which project was ongoing and supplier was availing input tax credit under GST regime – The buyers had booked units and made payments during pre-GST period and became entitled to benefit of additional Input Tax Credit accruing to Respondent in post-GST period - DGAP correctly computed additional ITC benefit by comparing ratio of ITC to purchase value in pre-GST and post-GST periods. The methodology is in conformity with Section 171 of CGST Act and consistent with principles enunciated by Delhi High Court - No infirmity can be found in methodology or in quantification of profiteered amount - Identifiability of recipients - Rule 133(3)(b) and Rule 133(3)(c) – HELD - Rule 133(3)(c) is residuary provision attracted only in those cases where eligible recipients are genuinely unidentified. Expression “recipient is not identifiable” cannot be interpreted to mean recipient has not filed complaint, is not presently available or that computation has not initially been made buyer-wise - Test under Rule 133(3)(c) is one of objective impossibility of identification - Where supplier's books of account, allotment letters, agreements for sale, demand notices, payment schedules and statutory records disclose identity of purchasers, recipients remain identifiable notwithstanding that they may not have participated in proceedings or may presently be untraceable or may have resold their flats - In present case Respondent is real estate developer engaged in sale of residential flats and nature of such transactions necessitates maintenance of exhaustive records of each homebuyer. Respondent itself relied upon buyer-specific data and categorised purchasers according to stage and timing of payments received. Such stand itself demolishes contention that recipients are unidentifiable - Factual matrix falls squarely within ambit and scope of clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 133 of CGST Rules - Respondent having collected excess consideration from homebuyers in contravention of Section 171 cannot be permitted to retain same - Respondent is directed to refund profiteered amount to respective homebuyers individually along with interest at rate of eighteen per cent per annum calculated from date of collection of excess amount from each homebuyer until date of actual restitution - Penalty under Section 171(3A) of CGST Act - Whether Respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 171(3A) – HELD - Since period of investigation in present case has been restricted to period from introduction of GST till issuance of Occupancy Certificate which is prior to coming into force of Section 171(3A), penalty provision is not attracted for period of investigation - It is well-settled principle of law that penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated - Section 171(3A) was inserted with effect from specified date and does not contain any provision for retrospective application - For period prior to coming into force of Section 171(3A), Respondent cannot be held liable for penalty under said provision - Respondent is not liable to pay penalty under Section 171(3A) of CGST Act. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1267-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Excess Payment of service tax - Adjustment of Excess Service Tax Against Subsequent Liability - Requirement of Corroborative Evidence - Appellant had intimated the Department of excess payment of Service Tax during September 2012 vide letter dated 12.10.2012 and adjusted the said excess amount towards Service Tax liability for the period from October 2012 to March 2013 as reflected in the ST-3 Returns – Dept rejected the claim on the ground that the Appellant had failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence regarding the excess payment - Whether the Appellant is entitled to adjustment of excess Servi... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1269-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on services received by Special Economic Zone unit for authorized operations - Appellant, an SEZ unit engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, claimed refund of service tax paid on various services including payroll processing, insurance brokerage, legal consultancy, professional and consultancy charges, and construction services received during the period - Whether services used for authorized operations of SEZ unit but not wholly consumed within the SEZ are eligible for refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2011-Service Tax - HELD - Services received by an SEZ unit for... [Read more]

2026-VIL-712-UTR | High Court SGST

GST - Limitation of Appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 - Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to Appeals filed beyond Prescribed Period – Power to condone delay in filing appeal Beyond 3 Months and extended period of one Month under Section 107 of CGST Act - Whether Appellate Authority can entertain appeal filed beyond prescribed period by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act - HELD – The CGST/SGST Act are special statutes which prescribe not only a specific period of limitation for preferring an appeal but also a maximum period upto which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. By virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands impliedly excluded - The legislative scheme underlying Section 107 manifests an implied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the period expressly provided under Section 107(4) of the Act. Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The Appellate Authority, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by the statute - The limitation prescribed under Section 107 forms an integral part of the appellate remedy itself and cannot be enlarged by resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act in absence of any statutory indication permitting such enlargement. The Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4), and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded by necessary implication - The individual writ petitions are directed to be listed for consideration of factual matrix of each case to examine whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked to examine the validity of the original order, although, the appeals have been dismissed on ground of limitation – Ordered accordingly - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – HELD - The principle emerging from the authoritative decisions is that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be determined by adopting any universal formula and the answer necessarily depends upon the language employed by the Legislature, the scheme of the special enactment, the nature of the remedy created and the legislative intent which can be gathered therefrom. The CGST Act stands on an entirely different footing from beneficial legislation and the limitation prescribed under Section 107 forms an integral part of the statutory framework intended to ensure certainty, finality and expeditious adjudication of tax disputes. A statute involving financial implications stands on a totally different footing and the nature, object and legislative scheme of the GST Act are materially different from those of beneficial enactments. Absent any statutory indication permitting such enlargement, the limitation prescribed under Section 107 cannot be enlarged by resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The mere absence of an express exclusion is not conclusive, equally, the mere prescription of a period of limitation coupled with a limited power of condonation does not conclude the enquiry. The Court must ascertain whether upon a holistic reading of the statute the Legislature intended to exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. [Read less]

2026-VIL-718-TEL | High Court SGST

GST – Application for Anticipatory bail - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - Necessity of Custodial Interrogation - Petitioners were partners of partnership firm engaged in business of supplying stainless steel products and ferrous scrap - DGGI initiated investigation alleging wrongful availment of ITC and estimated at approximately Rs. 94.96 crores by claiming credit on invoices without actual receipt of goods and from fake or non-existent suppliers - Petitioners apprehending arrest and seeking anticipatory bail - Whether arrest can be effected as matter of course in economic offences involving large-scale GST evasion or whether necessity of custodial interrogation must be independently established by investigating agency - HELD – The power of arrest under Section 69 of CGST Act is neither mechanical nor automatic and can be exercised only where Commissioner has reasons to believe person has committed specified offence and expression reasons to believe embodies substantive statutory safeguard requiring objective satisfaction founded on tangible material and not mere suspicion or allegations - Arrest is investigative measure and not punitive one and mere existence of power to arrest does not justify its exercise. Arrest must be shown to be necessary for purposes of investigation such as preventing abscondence, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing course of justice - Gravity of allegation by itself cannot justify curtailment of personal liberty. While economic offences constitute distinct class warranting fair thorough and effective investigation, constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty cannot be ignored - In present case investigation substantially centres around documentary financial and electronic records already in custody of authorities and petitioners being permanent residents with known identities and addresses have expressed willingness to cooperate and undertaken to appear before investigating authority whenever required - Custodial interrogation not indispensable at this stage where investigation can effectively proceed without depriving accused of personal liberty – The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions - The Criminal Petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1259-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

SVLDRS, 2019 - Manual Processing of Discharge Certificate - Appellant applied for SVLDRS, 2019 in time and paid the duty on the basis of SVLDRS issued, however the Discharge Certificate Form-4 was not received and the matter was reported to be pending on the portal. Whether the Discharge Certificate can be manually processed by the Commissioner when the online portal system is not processing the request despite payment of duty and fulfillment of scheme requirements by the Appellant - HELD - The issue is procedural in nature. Following the decision in similar case where this Bench had noted CBIC's Instruction on manual proc... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1262-CESTAT-CHD-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Exemption from Central Excise Duty on Job-Work, Discharge of service tax on job charges - Appellant received cast articles from principal manufacturers like Mahindra & Mahindra and Action Construction Equipment Ltd, performed job-work and sent back goods to principal manufacturers claiming exemption on gear-box housing under Notification No.06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Entry No.340 of Notification No.12/2012-CE - Whether appellant is entitled to exemption under the said notifications - HELD - The exemption notifications provide that parts used within the factory of production for manufacture of goods of... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1266-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Valuation - Rejection of Transaction Value because it appears low – Import of plastic LED bulbs from China - Department rejected declared value on basis of NIDB data and enhanced value on basis of NIDB data - Whether declared transaction value can be rejected and re-determined under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - HELD - Section 14 of Customs Act and Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 recognize transaction value as primary basis for customs assessment. Declared value cannot be rejected merely because it appears low. Rule 12 permits rejection only where reasonable doubt exists regarding truth or accuracy of declared value and such doubt remains unresolved after considering importer's explanation - In present case, appellant produced commercial invoice showing supply with complete details and banking evidence establishing remittance of entire invoice value through banking channels. Dept neither alleged any additional remittance, extra commercial consideration, flow-back arrangement nor any relationship between buyer and seller or any amount paid over and above invoice value - Dept relied solely on NIDB data without furnishing all details of comparable Bills of Entry, connected invoices and supporting documents, thereby denying appellant effective opportunity to test comparability - Rule 5 requires comparison with similar goods imported at or about same time. Similarity not established merely because both products are described as LED bulbs. Dept not established comparability on any parameters except wattage - The NIDB data alone cannot constitute basis for enhancement of value and Transaction value cannot be discarded merely because some imports reflect higher prices. Department must first establish circumstances warranting rejection of declared value under Rule 12. Requirements of Rule 12 for rejection of declared value are not satisfied - The enhancement of valuation based solely on NIDB data and resulting demand of differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are set aside - The appeal is allowed - Confiscation and Penalty - Goods subjected to confiscation and redemption fine and penalty imposed on allegation of undervaluation - Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are sustainable in law - HELD - Confiscation ordered by Commissioner entirely founded upon allegation of undervaluation. Once rejection of transaction value is held to be not tenable, consequential re-determination of value under Rule 5 cannot survive. Apart from allegation of undervaluation there is no evidence of any misdeclaration by appellant. Goods were imported under valid commercial invoices, invoice value was remitted through banking channels and goods were subjected to First Check examination. In these circumstances no basis exists for confiscation or imposition of penalty - Once valuation enhancement is set aside, confiscation under Section 111(m) cannot independently survive. Redemption fine imposed under Section 125 is liable to be set aside. For identical reasons, penalty imposed under Section 112(a) also becomes unsustainable. [Read less]

2026-VIL-716-PAT | High Court SGST

GST - Service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Cancellation of registration without service of notice in modes prescribed in Section 169 and without passing speaking order - Whether mere uploading of notice on GST portal constitutes complete compliance with requirement of Section 169 – HELD - This Court has taken consistent view that notice should be communicated through registered post under acknowledgment. Despite presence of two judgments on record with petitioner, the Dept has not made any statement regarding those decisions - The respondents are not showing bonafide approach by merely reiterating ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1268-CESTAT-MUM-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Eligibility to CENVAT credit on input service for repair and maintenance of studio buildings - Appellant availed CENVAT credit on service tax paid for RCC column strengthening and repair and maintenance charges of studio buildings – Disallowance of credit on the ground that such services were covered under exclusion clause of Rule 2(k) and Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether repair and maintenance services for existing infrastructure constitute input service eligible for CENVAT credit - HELD - The disputed services relating to repair and maintenance of existing studio and audio recording buildings from where output services are provided are covered under the phrase "modernisation, renovation or repairs of a premises of provider of output service" mentioned in the inclusion clause under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – The Rule 2(k) which provides definition of input goods is not relevant for examination of service tax paid on service portion in execution of works contract. Plain reading of Rule 2(l) shows that input service falls within means part covering services used directly or indirectly for provision of output service and inclusion part specifically stating certain services used in various activities. The repair and maintenance services fall within means and inclusion part and are not covered under exclusion part therefore there is no legal basis for denial of CENVAT credit – Further, in Rule 2(k) the service portion of the works contract is excluded as exception, and this cannot be construed as being excluded from the definition of ‘input. The grounds for rejection of input service credit on basis of Rule 2(k) are not legally sustainable and not justified - The impugned order is set aside and CENVAT credit for repair and maintenance charges is allowed – The impugned order is set aside to the extent it had denied CENVAT Credit in respect of repair and maintenance. The penalty imposed on the appellants is also set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1265-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Unjust Enrichment, Refund Claim amount shown as receivable in Balance Sheet - Appellant manufacturer of medicaments availed CENVAT credit on input services and later reversed the same in RG-23A Part-II -. Tribunal had allowed the CENVAT credit and appellant filed refund claim. Dept rejected refund claim on ground that reversed CENVAT credit was treated as revenue expenditure in financial accounts implying burden of duty was passed on to customer - Whether refund claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - HELD - The admitted facts are that appellant had claimed CENVAT credit... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1261-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Taxability of Cleaning Service provided to Indian Railway - Appellant provided services of cleaning of railway station premises involving disinfection of platforms, tracks, and mechanised coach cleaning - Whether such services fall under the category of cleaning service as defined in Section 65(24b) of Finance Act, 1994 and are chargeable to service tax - HELD - Services of cleaning do not fall under the category of cleaning service as the same were not rendered to a commercial concern. The definition of cleaning activity under Section 65(24b) applies only to cleaning rendered in respect of commercial or industrial buildings and premises or factory, plant or machinery of such commercial or industrial buildings - Indian Railways is a Government of India organisation meant for welfare of general public and cannot be called as a commercial concern as its operations of passenger transportation are not done with profit motive. Railway coaches are rolling stock meant for transport mode and cannot fall under commercial objects of industrial building, factory, plant or machinery - A taxing statute must be strictly interpreted and if someone gets out of tax net because of the way the taxing statute has been drafted, this cannot be remedied through judicial or quasi judicial order - Further, for period post 01.07.2012, services are exempt from service tax as per Entry 25 of Notification 25/2012-ST which exempts services ordinarily rendered by municipality such as public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management when provided to Government - The demand for cleaning service is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant rendered On-Board House-keeping Service involving cleaning and disinfection of toilets, bedroll distribution etc to Indian Railways and was charged service tax under BAS category - Whether such services are exempt from service tax under Entry 25 of Notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - HELD - Services rendered by appellant in the nature of on-board housekeeping service involving cleaning and disinfection are in the nature of public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management. Entry 25 of Notification 25/2012-ST exempts all such services which are rendered to Government as the same are otherwise exempted from service tax when rendered by a municipality - The services rendered by appellant are squarely covered within the ambit of Entry 25 of Notification 25/2012-ST. For period prior to 01.07.2012, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as the same issue was raised earlier in a prior SCN dated 11.10.2012 for period 2007-08 to 2011-12 and was finally decided in favour of appellant and the department was well aware of the activities - Once a show cause notice has been issued alleging suppression of facts, extended period cannot be invoked again on the very same issue to demand service tax for subsequent period - The demand for BAS for both periods is not sustainable and set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1270-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of imported aluminium formwork structures - Appellant imported consignments of aluminium formwork structure with accessories and classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 76109010 claiming exemption benefit under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs as amended by Notification No. 66/2016-Customs - Department challenged the classification contending that the imported goods should be classified under Tariff 84806000 and eligible for duty exemption under different serial numbers as the goods function as moulds for mineral materials - Whether imported aluminium formwork structures used for suppor... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1272-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Valuation of goods cleared to sister concern/Related party – Application of Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 when goods are cleared for captive consumption to sister unit - Appellant engaged in manufacture of Bromine cleared a major part of production to independent buyers at higher rates and balance quantity to sister unit at lower value for captive consumption and manufacture of further products – Demand of differential duty on clearances to related party - Whether goods cleared partly to independent buyers and partly to sister unit for captive consumption should be valued under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules at cost of production or under Rule 4 at the sale price charged to independent buyers - HELD - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when the entire quantity of excisable goods produced is consumed captively and not sold. A bare reading of Rule 8 which applies when excisable goods are not sold but are used for consumption shows that it is applicable to cases where entire production is consumed captively without any sale - When part of production is sold to independent buyers and the balance is transferred to related party for captive consumption, Rule 4 shall apply for determination of assessable value. The provision of Rule 4 stating that value shall be based on goods sold by the assessee for delivery at time nearest to removal of goods is applicable. Sale price to independent buyers shall be adopted for valuation of goods cleared for captive consumption as such transaction value is readily available and comparable to goods of similar specification and quality. The Board Circular dated 25.11.2013 regarding amended Rule 8, though clarificatory in nature, does not change the fundamental principle that Rule 8 applies only when entire quantity is consumed captively - The valuation under Rule 4 based on sale price to independent buyers for determining value of goods transferred to sister unit is correct. Demand for differential duty based on such valuation is upheld and the appeal is rejected - Extended Period of Limitation – Appellant did not separately disclose in ER-1 returns the quantity and value of goods cleared to sister unit and showed combined clearance quantity and clearance value without breakup between independent buyers and related party clearances. Whether extended period of limitation for demanding additional central excise duty can be invoked when the assessee has not separately disclosed related party sales in returns and whether such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of facts justifying invocation of extended period - HELD - The show cause notice clearly alleged that Appellant declared total quantity of goods cleared without providing breakup of quantity and value of clearances to related party which amounts to suppression of full and correct details of clearances in the prescribed format of returns. The Appellant has not disclosed full facts in excise returns and suppressed vital information regarding the fact that goods were cleared to sister unit at lower value compared to sales to independent buyers, with intent to evade payment of duty. Extended period of limitation can be invoked when there is suppression of facts or failure to provide accurate information regarding sales - The invocation of extended period of limitation is correctly upheld. The demand for differential duty for the larger period is sustainable. Interest is imposed as the Appellant did not provide accurate information to revenue. Penalty equal to duty amount is imposed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1264-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund Claim - Limitation Under Section 11B - Appellant a government housing board deposited service tax under bonafide mistake in respect of construction services for period prior to 01.07.2010 when construction services by builder to prospective buyers before completion were not treated as taxable as per CBEC Circular, but after amendment with effect from 01.07.2010, such services were made taxable - Whether the refund claim filed beyond one year from relevant date is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - Section 11B prescribes period of limitation as one year from relevant date for claiming refund of any duty or tax. However, in present case the refund sought was of amount deposited under mistake of law, which cannot be termed as tax or duty as there was no law at relevant time which required service tax to be paid on construction services. The government had no authority to collect any tax and therefore even if appellant had deposited amount under head of service tax, the same cannot be termed as service tax. The appellant is entitled to recover amount deposited under mistake of law and it has been repeatedly held that refund claim cannot be rejected on ground of limitation under Section 11B - The refund application cannot be rejected on ground of being time barred as per Section 11B – The appeal is disposed of - Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment - Appellant collected service tax from customers and claimed refund asserting that amount should be returned to eligible allottees from whom it was collected under mistake - Whether the refund claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) - HELD - Section 11B requires an applicant to prove that incidence of duty or tax has not been passed on to any other person. However, appellant has admitted that service tax was recovered and collected directly from allottees and buyers. The admitted position is that burden of amount deposited by appellant as service tax has been borne by allottees and buyers. Since Government cannot collect any tax except by authority of law, it cannot retain said amount. It is just and logical that liberty is granted to eligible allottees and buyers to make refund claim and on verification the same should be disbursed to them along with interest in accordance with law - Following decision in Mafatlal Industries, the refund claims cannot be entertained except in accordance with statutory provisions of Section 11B. However, in circumstances where deposit was not a service tax as there was no law under which service tax was leviable on services, the amount deposited was a mere deposit which government had no authority to retain - The refund claim cannot be rejected on ground of unjust enrichment, but liberty is granted to eligible allottees and buyers to make refund claims, and appellant is required to provide necessary assistance so that allottees are able to make refund application. [Read less]

2026-VIL-708-UTR | High Court SGST

GST - Mismatch of e-way bill number on tax invoice - Penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act - Department intercepted vehicle with mismatch in e-way bill details mentioned on invoice versus actual e-way bill produced - Whether Section 129 can be invoked for inadvertent mistakes and typographical errors in documents or whether penalty under Section 125 applies - HELD - The CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018 clarifies that in cases of inadvertent mistakes and typographical errors in documents, penalty to the tune of Rs. 500 each under Section 125 of CGST Act should be imposed and Section 129 should not be invoked - Section 129 is ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-31-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Jurisdiction and maintainability of application for Advance Ruling - Scope of Advance Ruling Authority under Section 95(a) and Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 - Appellant filed application before Appellate Authority seeking advance ruling on taxability of amounts received pursuant to settlement agreement based on arbitral awards for extra expenditure incurred during execution of hydro power plant construction contract - Whether application for advance ruling relating to completed transactions requiring factual examination and determination of tax position already adopted by the applicant could be entertained under the scheme of Advance Ruling - HELD - The institution of Advance Ruling is a distinct statutory mechanism conceived to provide certainty regarding the tax implications of transactions before disputes arise and is intended to facilitate voluntary compliance by enabling an applicant to obtain clarity regarding the GST implications of a proposed transaction or a transaction in the course of being undertaken - Section 95(a) of the CGST Act defines Advance Ruling as a decision provided by the Authority in relation to a supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and the jurisdiction of the Authority is intrinsically linked with transactions which are prospective or ongoing - In the present case, the contractual work stood completed prior to 01.07.2017, the disputes were referred to arbitration culminating in an arbitral award passed in 2023, the applicant received the awarded amounts and thereafter furnished the relevant statutory return consciously treating the receipts as non-taxable before invoking the jurisdiction of the AAR - The application was not seeking advance certainty regarding a proposed or ongoing transaction but one seeking affirmation of a tax position already adopted and implementation of such opinion through filing of statutory return. Such enquiry falls squarely within the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional proper officer and not within the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority - The impugned ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority cannot be sustained and the application ought not to have been entertained under the scheme of Chapter XVII of the CGST Act - No final opinion has been expressed on the taxability or otherwise of the amounts and it shall be open to the jurisdictional proper officer to examine the issue independently – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-1258-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Declared Services - Taxability of Wheeling Charges and Cross Subsidy Surcharges - Transmission and Distribution of Electricity - Wheeling charges are collected for transmitting power from independent power producers to their customers through the distribution network. Cross-subsidy surcharges are collected to meet the requirements of current level of cross subsidy as per the Electricity Act and Regulations - Whether wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharges constitute consideration for declared services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act and are leviable to service tax - HELD - Wheeling is nothing but transmission of electricity undertaken using the infrastructure as the power producer is not permitted to transmit electricity. Transmission is not leviable to service tax. Even assuming wheeling charges are collected as charges for permitting the power producer to transmit its electricity using the infrastructure, since it is an activity related to transmission of electricity and the main activity of transmission is done by the distribution company, wheeling charges would not be leviable to service tax - Collection of cross subsidy charges is provided under the Electricity Act and Regulations to meet the requirements of current level of cross subsidy within the area of supply of the distribution licence and is in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity and cannot be treated as a declared service since it is not for agreeing to tolerate an act of any other person. The cross-subsidy surcharges are not generated out of any service provided by the distribution company and therefore service tax cannot be levied on these charges. No service tax is leviable on wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharges. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside - Service Tax - Extended Period of Limitation - Service Tax Not Levied or Short Levied - Scope of Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 – Dept-Appellant contended that extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 was invokable as the Respondent had withheld material facts and failed to disclose receipts of wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharges in service tax returns, and further failed to respond to summons for providing month-wise details of such charges - Whether the ingredients necessary to invoke extended period of limitation namely fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax were established in the case - HELD - It is well-established that in order to invoke extended period of limitation one of the elements namely fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules with intent to evade must be established, wherein mens rea is an essential ingredient to invoke extended period of limitation. In the present case, the Department itself was not aware about the levy of service tax on wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharges. Not only the Respondent but even the Finance Ministry itself was not sure whether these were taxable - Neither the authority who issued the show cause notice nor the Respondent had any malafide intent. It was purely a question of interpretation. Absence of mens rea or fraudulent intention negates the invocation of extended period of limitation even if material facts were not initially disclosed - The order of the Commissioner dropping the demand for extended period of limitation is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1263-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Supply of Services in relation to Electricity Generation - Appellant undertaken fabrication and erection activities in Bhutan as approved sub-contractor for Punatsangchu Hydro Electric Project and Dagachu Hydro Power Project comprising fabrication of pressure shaft steel liners with accessories, testing, painting, transportation, erection, alignment and commissioning, and fabrication and supply of tunnelling formwork for hydroelectric power projects - Whether services are exempt from service tax under Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and Notification No. 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 - HELD - Services rendered by appellant were intrinsically connected with and meant for generation and supply of electricity through hydroelectric power projects in Bhutan. Notification No. 11/2010-ST granted exemption from service tax for taxable services provided for transmission of electricity and Notification No. 45/2010-ST granted exemption for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity - The legislative intent was to exempt taxable services rendered in relation to generation, transmission or distribution of electricity. Activities undertaken by appellant being intrinsically and inextricably connected with hydroelectric power generation projects are unmistakably covered by exemption notifications – Further, the installation of electricity meters has been held to be in relation to transmission of electricity. Any activity or service like erection, commissioning and installation as also technical testing and analysis can easily be termed as services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity following decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board case wherein the scope and applicability of the aforesaid exemption notifications in relation to services connected with generation and transmission of electricity came to be considered - The impugned demand of service tax together with interest and penalties cannot be sustained and set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1260-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on Insurance Premium to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation - Appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium to Deposit Insurance Corporation. The lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit - Whether CENVAT credit can be availed on service tax paid on insurance premium for Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee scheme when the insurance service is treated as an input service - HELD - In order to render any output service under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services, it is necessary for a Bank to register... [Read more]

2026-VIL-709-CAL | High Court SGST

GST – Levy of GST on Medicines supplied as part of Healthcare Services - Composite Supply and Principal Supply - Petitioner providing healthcare services and operating chain of multi-specialty hospital for inpatient treatment raised single bill including consultation, bed charges, surgery, diagnosis, medicines and consumables - Authorities issued order demanding GST under Section 76(1) of CGST 2017 on medicines and consumables supplied to inpatient - Whether section 76(1) allows department to demand tax on MRP of medicines when healthcare service is exempt and no GST charged separately or whether separate billing at MRP ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1271-CESTAT-BLR-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Valuation - Appellant imported PVC profile and other goods from China at declared values. During investigation of alleged mis-declaration regarding freight charges, invoices reflecting higher values were recovered during search and the Director admitted to declaring lower values for certain consignments while actual invoices received from overseas suppliers showed higher prices - Whether rejection of transaction value declared by Appellant and demand for differential duty based on invoices recovered during investigation and statements recorded from the importer is sustainable - HELD - The evidence on record including invoices recovered during investigation established higher values than those declared and the statement recorded from the Director confirmed that goods were intentionally undervalued. The declared transaction value was properly rejected as the invoices recovered during investigation reflected the true prices of goods at the time of removal and the assessable value based on the actual invoices recovered represents the true transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. The rejection of declared value and determination of assessable value based on invoices recovered and admissions made by the importer is sustainable and in accordance with law - Demand for differential duty against undervalued imports is upheld and goods are liable for confiscation. Redemption fine is reduced to amount calculated at ten percent and penalty reduced to amount calculated at five percent of the enhanced value of goods cleared under the Bills of Entry – Ordered accordingly - Confiscation and Penalty in Provisional Assessment - Goods imported were provisionally assessed and provisionally released in April 2014. Subsequently show cause notice was issued under Section 28 of Customs Act for finalization of provisional assessments proposing confiscation and penalties alleged to be undervalued based on comparison with values of petroleum products imported during different periods and at different specifications - Whether confiscation and penalties can be imposed under Section 28 when goods are only provisionally assessed and assessment is not finalized - HELD - Allegations of mis-declaration, suppression of facts and non-payment or short payment of Customs Duty arise only after finalization of assessments and adjustment of duty paid or payable under Section 18(2) of Customs Act. Section 28 can be invoked only when duty has not been levied or has been short-levied following final assessment. There is no legal justification for issuance of show cause notice under Section 28 for finalization of provisional assessments as only the Proper Officers have jurisdiction to finalize provisional assessments - The comparison using prices of petroleum products from different periods for determining value is unsustainable as petroleum products have varying prices depending on international petroleum price fluctuations - The impugned order proposing demand, confiscation and penalties based on enhanced value in provisional assessment is set aside. The demand, confiscation and penalties imposed on Appellant and CEO are set aside. Jurisdictional Proper Officer is directed to expeditiously finalize the provisional assessments in accordance with law. [Read less]

High Court Judgement | High Court SGST

GST - Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit on different grounds - Assistant Commissioner partially sanctioned refund and rejected balance amount - Petitioner preferred appeal and Appellate Authority set aside rejection order and directed refund but thereafter Assistant Commissioner again rejected refund application on different grounds relating to discrepancies in turnover reporting between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns - Whether Order-in-Appeal finalizing refund issue precludes Assistant Commissioner from examining refund claim afresh on other legally permissible grounds - HELD - The Order-in-Appeal merely set aside rejecti... [Read more]

2026-VIL-706-CAL | High Court SGST

GST - Scope of Section 168A for Extension of Limitation Period - Whether the time limit for issuance of order under Section 73(9) for Financial Year 2019-20 can be extended retrospectively by notification under Section 168A thereby defeating the three year limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act - HELD - A substantial question of law has been raised regarding the scope of Section 168A and its impact on the limitation under Section 73(10) for Financial Year 2019-20 warranting interference - An identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court and prima facie the petitioner has made out a case regarding jurisdictio... [Read more]

2026-VIL-721-KER | High Court SGST

GST - Scope of scrutiny of Refund Applications under Rule 90(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, Validity of Deficiency Memo - Petitioner claimed refund of GST paid on export of services - Respondent issued deficiency memo citing incorrect category, missing statutory statements under Circular 125/44/2019, insistence on Bank Realisation Certificate or FIRC instead of remittance advice, and claim barred by limitation - Whether deficiency memos issued under Rule 90(3) can be based on matters beyond scope of scrutiny of refund application - HELD - The scope of scrutiny under sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 is only to examine completeness of application against sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 89. The question whether the documents produced are acceptable or not, is a matter which is beyond the scope of such scrutiny and the same has to be considered at the time when it is considered on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard - Question of correct categorization of services is matter beyond scope of such scrutiny. Further, the Circular 125/44/2019 is not applicable to petitioner seeking refund of tax paid under reverse charge mechanism - The petitioner had produced document which is termed as advice of Foreign Inward Remittance, issued by the Bank, and that satisfies the requirements for which the Bank Realisation Certificate or FIRC is issued. The authorities should not reject application solely on title of certificate if contents satisfy requirements of Bank Realisation Certificate or FIRC. Ultimately, the said document is insisted upon, to show the genuineness of and the amounts involved in the transaction, and if the documents produced by the petitioner satisfies the said purpose, necessarily the same will have to be entertained and considered on its merits – On the question of limitation, the time limitation defense should be raised at merit stage after hearing petitioner. If the claim is barred by limitation, the application can be rejected at the time when the application is considered on merits after hearing the petitioner and it need not be rejected by issuing a deficiency memo under Rule 90(2) of the Rules – The Deficiency memos issued to petitioner are not legally sustainable - Writ petitions disposed of holding reasons in deficiency memos are not relevant factors for purpose of entertaining refund applications with direction to entertain refund applications re-filed by petitioner – The writ petitions are disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-30-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Restaurant Service and Composite Supply under GST – Classification of supply of non-tobacco and tobacco-based hookah along with food in restaurant - whether the activity of preparing and supplying tobacco-based and herbal (non-tobacco-based) hookah flavours through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant, together with the attendant facilities ordinarily provided therein, constitutes a supply of restaurant service within the meaning of paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the GST Acts, or whether such supplies are liable to be classified and taxed independently in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions - HELD - The supply of tobacco-based and herbal non-tobacco-based hookah flavours through hookah apparatus does not fall within ambit of Clause 6(b) of Schedule II merely because supplies are made in restaurant or along with food and beverages. The expression food or any other article for human consumption or any drink occurring in Clause 6(b) cannot be construed so widely as to include tobacco-based or herbal non-tobacco-based hookah flavours - The expression human consumption cannot be read in isolation divorced from statutory context and must be construed in light of expressions food and drink indicating articles ordinarily consumed by eating or drinking. The general expression ‘any other article for human consumption follows’ specific expressions food and drink belonging to well-recognised class of articles ordinarily consumed by eating or drinking. The purpose of food and beverages is distinct from that of hookah - Elaborate preparation involved in supplying hookah, use of specialised equipment and service rendered by trained personnel do not dispense with statutory requirement that goods supplied must themselves fall within category contemplated under Clause 6(b). The Composite supply provisions in Sections 2(30), 2(90) and 8 cannot enlarge scope of deeming provision contained in Schedule II - Supply of hookah comprises both goods and service elements but transaction constitutes composite supply with principal supply being supply of tobacco or non-tobacco products while service element remains ancillary – The supply of tobacco-based hookah flavours as well as herbal (non-tobacco-based) hookah flavours through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant does not fall within the ambit of paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the GST Acts merely because such supplies are made in conjunction with food, beverages and other restaurant facilities. Consequently, such supplies are not classifiable as restaurant service under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - The Advance Ruling order is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-704-MAD | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Applicability of Section 7-A of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 12 of Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Liability to pay purchase tax on goods purchased from unregistered dealers. Dept-Petitioner imposed purchase tax on Respondent civil contractors for purchase of sand, gravel and jelly from unregistered dealers utilised in execution of works contracts for assessment years 2003-2004 through 2012-2013, which was denied by Appellate Commissioner and confirmed by Appellate Tribunal on the ground that goods were used for construction of buildings and not for manufacture of other goods for sale - Whether purchase tax is attracted when goods purchased from unregistered dealers are consumed in construction of buildings - HELD - Section 7-A is both charging as well as remedial provision with main object to plug leakage and prevent evasion of tax. The Constitutional Bench judgment in Asstt. Commr. (Intelligence) v. Nandanam Construction Co. clearly established that once goods cease to exist or cease to be available in that form for sale or purchase so as to attract tax and correct meaning of the provision is that tax will be attracted when such goods are consumed in manufacture of other goods or are consumed otherwise. The expression otherwise will qualify both sale and manufacture not only sale. When goods are utilised in construction of buildings the goods cease to exist or cease to be available in that form for sale or purchase so as to attract the tax - The object of Section 7-A is to prevent evasion and ensure that goods do not escape tax net merely because transaction was effected through unregistered dealers - The Appellate Authority and Tribunal failed to consider the settled law laid down by Constitution Bench and various Division Benches of the Court consistently holding that utilisation of goods purchased from unregistered dealers in execution of works contracts would attract liability under Section 7-A notwithstanding levy under Section 3-B. The impugned orders containing finding that authority has no jurisdiction to impose sales tax under Section 7-A and Section 12 show perversity and aside - Purchase tax is attracted when goods purchased from unregistered dealers are utilised in construction of buildings. The appeal is allowed and impugned orders are quashed - Purchase Tax - Deemed Sale under Section 3-B - Relationship between Section 3-B (transfer of property in goods involved in works contract) and Section 7-A (purchase tax on goods from unregistered dealers) - Whether Section 3-B controls or excludes operation of Section 7-A when goods purchased from unregistered dealers are utilised in execution of works contracts. HELD - Section 3-B applies only when there is taxable transaction involving transfer of property in goods from registered dealer. On the other hand Section 7-A specifically deals with purchases effected from unregistered dealers who had not suffered tax. The two provisions operate in entirely different spheres and are independent provisions. Section 7-A relates to purchase tax whereas Section 3-B relates to transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contracts, therefore nature, character and taxable event under both provisions are distinct and separate - The controversy in present case does not arise out of transfer of property by registered dealer but out of purchases effected from unregistered dealers for use in execution of works contracts, hence Section 7-A independently stands attracted and Section 3-B would not apply. In view of findings of authorities that purchases were made from unregistered dealers there is no question of application of Section 3-B. The contention that Section 3-B controls or excludes operation of Section 7-A is contrary to law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami - Purchases made by works contractor from unregistered dealers are exigible to purchase tax under Section 7-A. The impugned orders are quashed and assessment orders of assessing authority are held in accordance with law and within jurisdiction. [Read less]

2026-VIL-707-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Entitlement to Input Tax Credit as per Section 16(6) of CGST Act, 2017 following Cancellation and Revocation of GST Registration - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by order dated 28.03.2022 and thereafter revoked - Petitioner contends that the time limit for filing returns is extended up to thirty days from date of revocation of cancellation and seeks to claim input tax credit for the period - Respondent authority contends that sub-sections (4) to (6) of Section 16 should be read as a whole and if so read, petitioner is not entitled to claim input tax credit - Whether petitioner is entitled to ITC when it ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-705-AP | High Court SGST

GST - Principles of Natural Justice in Assessment Proceedings - Petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice but the assessment authority claimed non-receipt and proceeded to issue assessment proceedings without considering the reply and without granting opportunity of hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act - Whether assessment proceedings passed without considering the petitioner's reply and without granting opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) - HELD - The assessment proceedings are violative of principles of natural ju... [Read more]

2026-VIL-715-KAR-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Scope of Goods Transport Agency Service - Classification of transportation services - Appellant company engaged in extraction, processing and export of iron ore availed transportation services for movement of iron ore from mine head to processing plant and to ports for shipment and deposited service tax on transportation charges - Appellant filed refund claim contending that transporters engaged were individual truck owners and not GTA and therefore no service tax was payable under GTA service - Whether transportation undertaken by individual truck owners falls within ambit of Goods Transport Agency service as defined under Section 65(50b) of Finance Act 1994 and whether documents described as pay slips constituted consignment notes - HELD – The definition of Goods Transport Agency does not make distinction between incorporated entity, partnership concern or individual transporter. The mere fact that transportation was undertaken by individual truck owners would not by itself exclude activity from scope of definition - Section 65(50b) employs expression consignment note by whatever name called indicating emphasis is on nature and contents of document and not name assigned to it. Once document substantially depicts receipt and transportation of goods and contains particulars ordinarily associated with consignment note, the mere fact that it is described as pay slip would not alter its legal character. The said documents depicted movement of goods and contained material particulars concerning transportation undertaken - The judgments relied upon by appellant are distinguishable as they found no goods consignment notes had been issued by transporter whereas pay slips issued answer description of consignment note - Transportation services received were liable to be classified under category of Goods Transport Agency service - Once levy itself is held to be valid, consequential claim for refund cannot survive - The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-720-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Recovery of dues from partnership firm and partnership members - Liability of partners and authorized signatories under Section 88(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner in partnership firm challenged recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act seeking to attach bank accounts of the partnership firm to recover tax dues of a defaulting Private Limited company in respect of which one of the partners was a Director during the period of default - Whether recovery of tax dues from the partnership firm and its bank accounts could be initiated merely on account of the partnership of one of its members with the defaulting company and the directorship of such member in the defaulting company during the tax period - HELD - When a private company is wound up and any tax, interest or penalty determined under the GST Act on the company for any period cannot be recovered from the company under liquidation, then every person who was a Director of such company at any time during the period for which the tax was due shall, jointly and severally, be liable for the payment of such tax, interest or penalty under Section 88(3) of the Act unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that such non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company - The recovery proceedings have been validly initiated against the petitioners on account of the tax arrears from the Directors of the defaulting company as the said petitioner was the Director of the defaulting company during the period of the default and also a partner in the partnership firm during the period of accrual of demand - The burden of proof that the tax default was not on account of the said petitioner but on account of other Directors is to be discharged only before the Commissioner as is contemplated under Section 88(3) of the Act - The impugned recovery notices cannot be interfered with and liberty is given to the petitioner to work out her remedy within the statutory framework of Section 88(3) of the Act - The writ petitions are dismissed - GST - Bank attachment for recovery of tax dues - Validity of procedures followed under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 145(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Petitioner challenged attachment of bank accounts of the partnership firm on the ground that recovery proceedings were initiated against a separate legal entity merely on the basis of common link of one of the partners with the defaulting company - Whether recovery proceedings validly initiated against a partnership firm for recovery of tax dues of a defaulting company could be sustained when the partnership firm itself had no direct liability for such dues - HELD - The scheme under Section 88(3) of the CGST Act makes it clear that when a private company is wound up and tax cannot be recovered from the company, every person who was a Director of such company during the period for which the tax was due shall be liable for the payment of such tax, interest or penalty - Since the petitioner in the individual petition was also the partner in the partnership firm and was the initial partner of the said firm after the execution and registration of the partnership deed and continued after default was made in the said company, the challenge to the impugned recovery communication addressed to the bank account holders cannot be countenanced - All partners of the defaulting company are also partners of the petitioner firm and therefore they cannot deny their relationship with the defaulting company and their liability to be proceeded under Section 88(3) of the Act. Merely because the petitioner resigned subsequently is of no anvil - There is no violation of principles of natural justice in attaching the bank accounts and the recovery proceedings have been validly initiated following the procedures laid down under Section 79 of the GST Act - The writ petitions are dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-711-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Locus standi of third party to challenge Advance Ruling orders - Petitioner, being a recipient of supplies under a contract with the party who obtained the Advance Ruling, seeks to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling classifying supplies and services attracting varying rates of GST - Though the petitioner was not a party to the Advance Ruling proceedings, contends that by virtue of contractual obligation to reimburse the applicable GST, the order imposed financial burden and civil consequences upon it - Whether a writ petition challenging an order passed by the AAR or the AAAR can be maintained by a person other than the applicant and the concerned officer, and whether such writ petition is maintainable in the absence of locus standi – HELD – In terms of Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017 an order passed by the Advance Ruling or the Appellate Authority is binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer, and is a decision in personam binding only on the parties to the proceedings - Having regard to the scope and ambit of Chapter XVII dealing with Advance Rulings, there is no scope to bind third parties and there is no scope for a challenge at the instance of any person other than the applicant or the concerned officer, irrespective of the consequences flowing from such Ruling - Any financial implication arising by way of increased liability pursuant to an Advance Ruling is merely a consequence flowing from such ruling in the light of the contractual obligations between the parties. The general principle that an aggrieved person is one who suffers adverse consequences by reason of a decision cannot be mechanically applied to pronouncements rendered under Chapter XVII of the Act - Having regard to the legislative intent and the scope of the provisions, the Court does not find any scope for a third party either to claim the benefit of such ruling or to question the same. The Authority for Advance Ruling is essentially an alternate advance dispute resolution mechanism and cannot be treated as general litigation so as to permit third parties to enter the arena of such proceedings - When there is no contractual stipulation classifying the supply of goods or services or specifying the applicable rate of GST, the question of the impugned ruling imposing any additional liability does not arise and consequently the petitioner cannot be regarded as an aggrieved person. Entertaining such writ petition would necessarily require the Court to interpret the contract as incorporating clauses relating to the classification of goods or services and the applicable rate of GST which are otherwise absent in the contract, which exercise would amount to rewriting the terms of the contract which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - The writ petition is not maintainable for want of locus standi and is accordingly dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-703-MAD-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers - Scope of Authority conferred under Notification No.22/2014 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs - Whether Central Excise Officers can be invested with pan-India jurisdiction to exercise powers under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 when Service Tax Rules, 1994 restrict their jurisdiction to local limits assigned by the Board - HELD - The power to appoint Central Excise Officers vested with the Board under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to exercise powers under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 requires that such officers exercise their power within the local limit as it may assign to them. The expression local limit cannot mean the whole of State or country. Subordinate Legislation cannot travel beyond the parent statute - The borrowing of definition under Clause 55 of Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994 for expressions used but not defined in Service Tax Rules, 1994 is restricted in so far as in relation to service tax qua duty of excise - The Section 2(b) of the CEA, 1944 provides an expansive definition of Central Excise Officer that includes officer of the Central Excise Department. However, the expression Central Excise Officer cannot be construed in a restrictive manner confining it to the Central Excise Officer of the local limits of the Taxpayer. The Board has wide discretion in power while fixing the local limit assigned to a Central Excise Officer and local limit can be pan or all India - The Notification No.22/2014 is to be read in conjunction with the earlier Notification No.38/2001-C.E.(N.T.) dated 26.06.2001 which already conferred pan-India jurisdiction on the officers of DGGI. The Notifications issued since 2001 have in this regard conferred pan-India jurisdiction upon the Central Excise Officers and the same has been acted upon throughout the country. A mere reference to Section 65B and Clause 55 of the Finance Act, 1994, in the subsequent Notification No.22 of 2014 will not take away the power of the Board which is otherwise vested with them - The notification which has sustained for decades and tested judicially cannot be upset by a pedantic interpretation. The doctrine of comity of jurisdiction requires that for proper administration of justice, there should not be an overlapping exercise of powers by multiple officers - The impugned Notification No.22/2014 conferring power on Central Excise Officers to issue show cause notices throughout the territory of India is held to be valid and the SCNs issued by the Central Excise Officers outside the local limits of the taxpayer are held to be valid and enforceable – The writ petitions are dismissed - Pre-consultation Requirement - Master Circular No.1503/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 - Mandatory Nature of Administrative Guidelines - Whether violation of pre-consultation process before issuance of SCN is fatal to the validity of the notice - Whether a Circular issued by the Department can override or fetter the right of the Board to invest power on Central Excise Officers - HELD - The Master Circular suggesting pre-consultation is not mandatory but only recommendatory in nature. It is a settled principle of law that the Circular issued by the Department will not have any precedence over the statute. A Circular cannot override the statutory provision or fetter the right of the Board to invest power on Central Excise Officers as per the statute. The show cause notice cannot be quashed for non-compliance with the pre-consultation process - The order-in-original passed in these cases being a question of fact the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the parties to prepare an appeal and granted liberty to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. Accordingly the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in all the writ petitions are upheld and the show cause notice or order-in-original as the case may be are held to be valid and enforceable. [Read less]

2026-VIL-713-TEL | High Court VAT

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Levy of tax on blended coffee sold by Trade Mark Holder - Application of Section 5AA of APGST Act, 1957 - Appellant engaged in manufacturing and marketing of a product under its own trademark and brand name, purchasing raw materials from preceding points of sale which had already suffered tax. Appellant claimed exemption under Section 5 read with Entry 34A of the First Schedule to APGST Act, 1957 contending that the goods were entitled to exemption and that tax levied and collected at the preceding point of sale should be deducted from the tax payable at the subsequent point of sale - Whether Section 5AA can be applied to sales effected by a dealer marketing goods under a trademark or brand name at a point of sale other than the first point of sale, and whether tax at preceding points of sale is liable to be deducted from tax payable under Section 5AA, notwithstanding any express prohibition claimed in the provision itself regarding first sales – HELD - The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Blended Coffee by purchasing coffee seeds and chicory, subjecting the coffee seeds to the process of roasting and grinding and thereafter blending them with chicory before marketing the final product - A dealer who markets goods under a trademark or brand name at a point of sale other than the first point of sale is liable to tax under Section 5AA of the APGST Act, 1957 irrespective of whether the trademark is registered or unregistered. The statutory language of Section 5AA does not contain any express prohibition prohibiting its application to dealers engaged in manufacturing and sale of goods under a trademark. The provision operates by deeming such a dealer to be the first seller in the State when goods are sold at any point other than the actual first point of sale - The liability to tax under Section 5AA is attracted by the mere fact of marketing goods under a trademark or brand name, irrespective of trademark registration status. The Appellate Tribunal committed no error in confirming the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the assessment made by the assessing authority – The Tax Revision Cases are dismissed and the impugned order is upheld [Read less]

2026-VIL-719-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Export of services - Non-production of Foreign Investment Remittance Certificate and Bank Statements - Petitioner had commenced export of services business and filed all returns for the relevant period - Respondent initiated proceedings and confirmed adjudication order solely on the ground that petitioner failed to produce copies of FIRC and Bank Statements without considering Letter of Undertaking, sale invoices and banker's certificates evidencing remittances to Non-Resident Rupee Account - Whether proceedings could be confirmed only for non-production of specific documents without considering alternative evidence ... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements