More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-1412-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Refund of IGST on exports to Bhutan - Failure to file Shipping Bills - New procedure under CGST regime - Appellant exported goods to Bhutan and paid IGST but did not file Shipping Bills as required under the new export procedure that came into effect w.e.f. 01.07.2017, instead following the procedure applicable prior to that date - Whether Appellant is eligible for refund of IGST paid when the new Shipping Bill procedure was not followed - HELD - The IGST paid by the Appellant stands undisputed as evidenced from the tax invoices. A harmonious reading of tax invoices, Bhutan invoices, details of consignments being... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1413-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit - Liability of recipient to verify manufacture by supplier - Department contended that the vendor's activity does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore Appellant is not eligible for taking Cenvat Credit - Whether the recipient of inputs is liable to determine whether the supplier's activity amounts to manufacture - HELD - The Department does not dispute the receipt of Fuel Oil by the Appellant and usage of the same in the Appellant's own manufacturing activities. The Excise Duty paid by the supplier cannot be questioned at the recipie... [Read more]

2026-VIL-74-SC-ST | Supreme Court SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1401-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of Letter of Credit charges recovered by trading company - Classification of LC charges as consideration for taxable service under banking and other financial services – Appellant recovered LC charges at fixed percentage from domestic buyers in High Seas Sale transactions along with trading margin as part of the price of imported goods sold - Whether LC charges recovered by the appellant from domestic buyers constitute taxable service under Banking and Other Financial services category or form part of price of goods sold – Demand invoking extended period of limitation - HELD - As evidenced by the nomenclature High Seas Sale Agreement, the dominant nature of the agreement is for sale of goods and the consideration clause specifically provides that the buyer shall pay inclusive of LC charges as per seller's invoice and such amount shall present the entire amount payable and shall include all costs of the seller – Since the relationship between the appellant and HSS buyer is that of seller and buyer and not service provider and service recipient, the basic requisites for classifying activity as service are absent - The expression banking and other financial services refers to services provided by banking company or financial institution which has authority to issue letter of credit and includes services normally rendered by banks and financial institutions. The appellant being purely a trading organization is not engaged in banking and other financial services and hence cannot be categorized as a body corporate or commercial concern similar to banking institutions - Every flow of money does not have the character of consideration for service. For rendering a service there must be a relationship in nature of service provider and service recipient. Mere payment of LC charges by buyer does not imply that appellant has rendered any taxable service - The LC charges being pre-import charges form part of the transaction value of goods imported and cleared by HSS buyer. It amounts to composite supply where primary transaction is sale of goods and procuring LC is merely linked to transaction of sales and hence cannot be vivisected to charge service tax on LC charges recovered as part of price of goods sold. In a composite supply the principal supply determines the nature of taxation. The primary transaction being sale of goods to the HSS buyer it has to be treated as transaction of sales, which has already suffered the customs duty - The demand of service tax is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1415-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - SAFTA exemption - Mismatch in tariff classification - Denial of Country of Origin benefit - Appellant imported textile items from Bangladesh and claimed exemption under Notification No. 99/2011 (SAFTA) on the basis of Country of Origin certificate issued by the exporting country. The adjudicating authority found classification mismatch between the codes mentioned in the Certificate of Origin and the codes redetermined by customs authorities and denied the benefit of exemption. Goods were also proposed for confiscation - Whether mismatch in tariff classification at 6-digit level between Country of Origin certificate and customs authorities' determination invalidates the Country of Origin certificate and disentitles the appellant from exemption benefit - HELD - There was no misdeclaration found on the description of the goods. Even if there is a mismatch in tariff classification, this does not disentitle the appellant from the benefit available on the basis of Country of Origin as none of the conditions under Rule 2 of CAROTAR 2020 for denying COO have been satisfied. The redetermined tariff headings remain well covered within the benefit of the exemption notification - Article 14 of SAFTA Rules states that minor discrepancies between statement made in certificate of origin and documents shall not invalidate the certificate. Under Section 28DA and CAROTAR rules, no provision exists to reject Country of Origin certificate merely on basis of classification mismatch when Country of Origin of goods is not in dispute. Appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption as claimed - Differential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine all set aside – The appeal is allowed - Customs - Valuation - Branded goods - Redetermination of value on basis of NIDB data - Appellant declared value of textile items on basis of supplier's invoice. Adjudicating authority redetermined the value citing NIDB data for similar branded goods without investigating whether goods were counterfeits - Whether valuation can be enhanced based on NIDB data for branded goods without investigating counterfeiting and without following valuation procedure - HELD - Adjudicating authority found that no brands on the goods were registered with Customs and no infringement of Intellectual Property Rights arose. However, value was enhanced by adopting price of branded goods without basis. No investigation was carried out to establish whether goods were counterfeits. Simply naming a brand does not make goods branded or counterfeit. Value of textile items depends on nature and quality of fabric which is vital to arrive at price. Value enhancement was done arbitrarily without following procedure prescribed under Valuation Rules. Declared transaction value cannot be rejected and redetermined value is not sustainable - Redetermined value set aside and transaction value declared by appellant is upheld. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1404-CESTAT-HYD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Refund of interest collected on account of system-related technical glitches - Scope of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - Payment of customs duty within prescribed period through the newly introduced Electronic Cash Ledger system. Due to technical glitches in the portal the amounts were debited from the bank but not immediately reflected in the E-Cash Ledger, resulting in automatic computation of interest under Section 47(2) by the system when challans were generated after the due date - Appellant paid such interest and subsequently sought refund claiming that the interest was not legally payable due to system-related difficulties and that waiver orders issued by the Board covered such cases - Whether refund claim filed on 20.06.2024 for interest paid on 18.04.2023 and 22.04.2023 can be entertained beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act - HELD - Section 27 provides that any person claiming refund of any duty or interest paid may make an application before expiry of one year from the date of payment of such duty or interest. The limitation does not apply where the duty or interest has been paid under a written protest - In the present case there was no material to establish that the interest was paid under written protest. The statutory period of one year expired on 18.04.2024 and 22.04.2024 respectively from the dates of payment, and the refund claim was admittedly filed on 20.06.2024, which was after expiry of the statutory period - The present proceeding is a refund claim filed before the statutory authority and not a writ petition invoking Constitutional Jurisdiction. The Tribunal being a creature of statute is bound by conditions and limitations prescribed under Section 27. The Administrative waiver orders themselves prescribed conditions for availing waiver including payment within the stipulated period and such orders cannot dispense with the limitation enacted by Parliament. The appellant's late knowledge of operational guidelines cannot confer jurisdiction upon the authority to condone the delay as Section 27 makes no provision for extension of the period on ground of sufficient cause or hardship. The question whether interest was otherwise leviable has relevance to substantive entitlement but before merits can be examined the claim must be maintainable under Section 27 - The refund claim is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained - The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1403-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Tariff Classification of Light Emitting Diode modules - General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff - Appellant imported LED modules for manufacturing LED lights and fixtures declared under Chapter Tariff Heading 8541 4020 with BCD at 10 percent - Department through reassessment contended that the goods were more appropriately classifiable under CTH 9405 9900 attracting BCD at 20 percent, leading to differential duty demand and penalties - Whether the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 8541 4020 or CTH 9405 9900 and whether extended period of limitation was rightly invoked - HELD – The classification of imported goods is governed by the General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff and GRI 1 which gives primacy to the headings and notes is the non-negotiable starting point. GRI 2, 3 and 4 are applied sequentially only when requisite - Chapter 8539 covers light-emitting diode LED lamps which consist of glass or plastic envelope, one or more light-emitting diodes, circuitry to rectify AC power and convert voltage to a level useable by LEDs, and a base for fixing in lamp holder - Chapter 9405 covers lamps and lighting fittings not elsewhere specified or included - The impugned goods being multiple LEDs on a panel with PCB and heat sink but without the circuitry to control and convert voltage, are capable of performing as LED lamp provided electric supply is connected - The essential character of imported goods must be determined with reference to their state at the time of importation and not with reference to purpose of import. The goods cannot be classified as street lamp or searchlight of CTH 9405 as LED lamps are specifically covered under CTH 8539 - Residuary heading means not specified elsewhere in the entire tariff. The impugned goods are appropriately classifiable under CTH 8539 which also requires BCD to be paid at 10 percent. There is no case of short payment of customs duty - The impugned orders-in-original are set aside and order-in-appeal is upheld - The appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-48-GSTAT-THN | Tribunal SGST

GST - Jurisdiction of GSTAT - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 – Appellant-Revenue preferred appeal before GSTAT against first appellate authority order upholding the respondent taxpayer's refund claim - Whether GSTAT has jurisdiction to entertain appeals on refund of accumulated and unutilized CENVAT credit availed under erstwhile CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD – The Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 explicitly provides that every claim for refund of CENVAT credit or duty under existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of existing law. The said sect... [Read more]

2026-VIL-858-RAJ | High Court SGST

GST - Registration cancellation - Appeal dismissed on ground of delay - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective 31.01.2024 for non-filing of GST returns for six months. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, had engaged an accountant or local advocate to handle statutory compliances but was not informed about the requirement to file GST returns or the issuance of Show Cause Notice - HELD - The GST registration cancellation is virtually a civil death that brings business operations to a standstill. Petitioner was entirely dependent on accountant for statutory compliance who failed to inform about filing requir... [Read more]

2026-VIL-859-SIK | High Court SGST

GST on online gaming and betting - Petitioner challenged constitutional and statutory validity of levy of GST on online gaming and fantasy sports transactions - Whether levy of GST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions including online gaming and fantasy sports is constitutionally valid - HELD - The Supreme Court has addressed all substantive issues raised in the writ petition - The writ petition filed by the petitioners had made five substantive prayers. All the contentions and prayers made by the petitioners in the writ petition were also substantive issues before the Supreme Court and the S... [Read more]

2026-VIL-75-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Refund of IGST exports of goods and services - Omission of Rule 96(10) - Applicability to pending proceedings - Petitioner claimed refund of IGST paid on goods and services exported out of India. Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules 2017 was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 effective 08.10.2024 which imposed restrictions on refund claims - High Court held omission applies to all pending proceedings - Whether omission of Rule 96(10) without saving clause applies to pending proceedings or only prospectively - HELD - Constitution Bench principle in Kolhapur Canesugar Works case holds that omission of a Rule obliterates it from ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1410-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of dealer incentives and miscellaneous receipts under Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant, an authorized dealer of motor vehicles, received various reimbursements and incentives from manufacturer under dealership arrangement including incentives on target sales, extended warranty incentives, corporate claims, exchange benefits and loyalty benefits, which were reflected under accounting head "Claim from Honda" and miscellaneous receipts in the books of account - Whether such receipts constitute taxable consideration for BAS or are merely trade discounts flowing from principal-to-principal commercial relationship - HELD - The true character of a transaction must be determined from its real substance and not from the accounting head or nomenclature assigned in the books of account. The Letter of Intent issued by manufacturer clearly envisages the appellant functioning as an authorized dealer establishing a principal-to-principal commercial relationship between manufacturer and dealer - The incentives flowing from such dealership arrangement are intrinsically connected with the sale and distribution of motor vehicles and cannot be construed as consideration received towards promotion or marketing services merely by reason of the nomenclature adopted in the books - Dealer incentives are target-linked trade discounts flowing from a principal-to-principal sale relationship and not consideration for business auxiliary service irrespective of the ledger head under which they are recorded. Miscellaneous receipts comprising diverse entries such as Road Side Assistance booklet charges, free service coupons, insurance claim amounts do not represent consideration for any taxable service except booking cancellation charges which the appellant has already paid. Mere accounting regrouping or reclassification of figures cannot be equated with receipt of fresh consideration for a taxable service and in the absence of additional inflow of consideration the confirmation of service tax on such regrouped figures is unsustainable - The demand of service tax confirmed under the category of Business Auxiliary Service is set aside – The appeal is allowed - Service Tax - Reverse charge liability for Goods Transport Agency service - Appellant raised demand for service tax under reverse charge for freight on purchase of motor vehicles, towing charges and carriage inward charges during Financial Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 - Whether statutory prerequisites for invoking reverse charge mechanism under GTA service were established and whether liability arose on the appellant – HELD - The essential ingredients for fastening liability under RCM have not been established. Under the applicable notification, liability to discharge tax arises only upon the person who pays or is liable to pay the freight to the GTA. The material on record demonstrates that transportation of vehicles from manufacturer's premises was arranged by the manufacturer which was itself liable for payment of freight to the transporter and the manufacturer had discharged the corresponding reverse charge liability as certified by it. Once evidence on record establishes that the manufacturer was the person liable to pay freight and had discharged the reverse charge liability, the same transaction cannot again be subjected to tax in the hands of the appellant - For towing charges, the Dept proceeded merely on nomenclature of the ledger entry without examining whether the statutory requirements of a Goods Transport Agency including issuance of consignment notes were satisfied. The activity cannot automatically be classified as GTA service merely because it involves movement of a vehicle from one place to another - For carriage inward expenses, the appellant consistently maintained that the ledger head represents routine administrative expenditure such as courier and postage charges and the department produced no material whatsoever to establish that the payments were made towards services rendered by a GTA. Before invoking reverse charge liability the revenue was required to establish through cogent evidence that the underlying transactions represented transportation of goods by a Goods Transport Agency within the meaning of the Finance Act - The demand of service tax confirmed under GTA service under reverse charge is set aside - Reverse charge liability for manpower supply and security services - Applicability of reverse charge mechanism based on legal status of service provider - Appellant received manpower supply and security services during Financial Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 - Department raised demand for service tax under reverse charge alleging that appellant failed to discharge tax on such services - Whether RCM liability was applicable when service providers were private limited companies and whether the statutory prerequisites for invoking reverse charge were satisfied - HELD - The liability under reverse charge in respect of manpower supply and security services is governed by the notification which during the relevant period fastened reverse charge liability only where such services were provided by an individual, Hindu Undivided Family, partnership firm or association of persons to a business entity registered as a body corporate. The very applicability of the notification is contingent upon the legal status of the service provider - In the present case the appellant consistently contended that the services were received from private limited companies and produced sample invoices issued by such entities containing their names, registered office addresses, PAN particulars and Service Tax Registration Numbers which themselves indicated the status as companies - The appellant further pointed out that payments were reflected in its books of account, tax had been deducted at source wherever applicable and the Service Tax charged by vendors had been availed as credit on the strength of invoices issued by them - Once the appellant produced material indicating that service providers were private limited companies and the Department neither disputed nor verified the same despite possessing all necessary particulars, the foundational requirement for invoking the reverse charge notification remains unestablished. The confirmation of demand merely on the basis of perceived deficiencies in copies of documents without addressing the substantive statutory requirement cannot be sustained - The demand of service tax confirmed under manpower supply and security services under reverse charge is set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1406-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Classification of work undertaken in commercial showroom fitment - Determination of abatement under Rule 2A of Service Tax Valuation Rules 2006 - Appellant, engaged in interior decoration and designing, received newly constructed commercial buildings with roof and floor and converted them into modern commercial showrooms involving making usable floors and ceiling, internal walls, HVAC, fire suppression, plumbing and other fit-outs, paying VAT on eighty percent of the work contract value as goods - Whether work undertaken by the appellant constitutes original work attracting sixty percent abatement under Rule 2A(ii)(A) or completion and finishing services attracting thirty percent abatement under Rule 2A(ii)(B) of Service Tax Valuation Rules 2006 and whether taxable service was provided by appellant in receiving forfeiture of advance and reimbursement for goods destroyed in fire - HELD - The work undertaken by the appellant which involved converting bare skeletal structures of buildings into complete showrooms including electricity, HVAC, plumbing, flooring, ceiling, air-conditioning and partitioning constitutes original work and not merely completion or finishing work. As the appellant had discharged VAT on eighty percent of the value considering the work as original work, the appellant has rightly paid service tax under Rule 2A(ii)(A) on notional basis by claiming abatement of sixty percent of the value of works contract. No demand is sustainable on this count - The forfeiture of advance paid by customer for purchase of goods which customer abandoned cannot be termed as any service provided by appellant. No service tax is payable on forfeiture of advance. The reimbursement received by appellant from commercial entity for loss of goods due to fire outbreak in showroom is against loss incurred by appellant and cannot be termed as service provided by appellant. No service tax is payable on said reimbursement. No demand is sustainable against the appellant and no penalty can be imposed - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1405-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of Glow Plug Controller / Glow Control Unit [GCU] is used in Diesel Engine Motor Vehicles (Cars) - Tariff classification of electronic control equipment for motor vehicles - Appellant imported Glow Plug Controller for use in diesel engines and classified the same under CTH 9032 8990 as automatic regulating or controlling instruments and apparatus claiming exemption benefits - Department that the goods were appropriately classifiable under CTH 8511 as parts of glow plugs - Whether the Glow Plug Control Unit is classifiable under CTH 9032, CTH 8537 or CTH 8511 and whether extended period of limitation is invokable - HELD - Chapter 90 carves out exception for apparatus for switching or controlling electrical circuits that are more specifically covered in Chapter 85 headings like 8511 and hence CTH 9032 does not apply. CTH 8537 which covers boards, panels, consoles equipped with two or more apparatus of heading 8535 or 8536 for electric control or distribution of electricity also does not apply as the GCU is a single-PCB electronic module and not structurally meeting the two or more apparatus requirement, and the function of the said product is not for electric control or distribution - Section Note 4 of Section XVI states that where a machine consists of individual components intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function - The GCU and Glow Plugs contribute together to a single defined function of electrical ignition or starting equipment for compression-ignition engines. CTH 8511 explicitly covers electrical ignition or starting equipment used for compression-ignition internal combustion engines, including glow plugs. HSN Explanatory Notes to 8511 extend this heading to electronic control units that regulate ignition or glow-plug operation based on sensor inputs - Following GRI 1, the GCU is appropriately classifiable under CTH 8511 as parts thereof. The GCU has no independent function outside of the glow plug system and is an inherent part of the glow plug system making it inseparable for safe and effective operation of the ignition equipment - As regards extended period of limitation, when the same goods were cleared by the Department without disputing their classification under CTH 9032, and the allegation of suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade cannot be accepted. Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and penalty under section 114A cannot be sustained - The impugned order is amended to the extent that demand for normal period only is upheld and penalty under section 114A is not sustained - The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1416-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Valuation - Place of removal – Inclusion of Freight and insurance - Show Cause Notice proposing to add freight and insurance charges to the assessable value on the ground that buyer's premises constitute the place of removal. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand invoking extended period of limitation - Whether freight and insurance are includible in assessable value when already in-built in the price charged and not separately collected from customers - HELD - The cost of freight and insurance cannot be included in the assessable value when the same is in-built in the price of goods and is not separately collected. The burden lies on the department to prove that extra amount towards freight and insurance has been collected by appellant in addition to price charged. No such proof has been provided except a bald statement in an internal report. The issue of includeability of freight and insurance is settled law in favour of appellant by Supreme Court judgment in Escorts JCB Ltd. case and Ispat Industries Ltd. case which hold that customer's premises cannot be the place of removal. The demand confirmed by including cost of freight and insurance is not sustainable - Demand set aside and the appeal is allowed - Place of removal - Buyer's premises - Appellant sold goods both at factory gate and to depots with uniform prices. The adjudicating authority held buyer's premises as the place of removal and included freight and insurance in assessable value. Relying on the amended definition of place of removal in Section 4, the Revenue contended that since goods were insured in transit, place of removal should be deemed as buyer's premises - Whether buyer's premises can be treated as place of removal for purpose of including freight and insurance in assessable value - HELD - Buyer's premises cannot be treated as place of removal since there is no further removal from the buyer's premises. The ownership passing to buyer and transit insurance do not determine the place of removal. The Supreme Court in Escorts JCB Ltd. case held that mere arrangement of transport and transit insurance by seller does not mean ownership is retained by seller till delivery. In Ispat Industries Ltd. case, Supreme Court categorically held that cost of transportation from place of removal to place of delivery is to be excluded from assessable value. Sales from factory were made FOR Works and not FOR Destination. Therefore, factory or depot from which goods were sold remains the place of removal - Demand set aside - Show Cause Notice - Vague allegations - Hypothetical methodology - The Show Cause Notice computed demand assuming 80% of goods attracted freight at Rs. 6 per kg. and 20% at Rs. 45 per kg. The basis for applying different values was not clear. The Notice did not specify whether quantities related to factory to depot or depot to actual customer movements. The Notice did not refer to price list filed on 18-09-1996 which stated freight would not be deducted from assessable value post Finance Bill 1996. Subsequent price declarations clearly reflected no deduction of freight or insurance was claimed - Whether a vague Show Cause Notice based on hypothetical methodology of computation denies proper opportunity of defence - HELD - The Show Cause Notice is vague and adopted hypothetical methodology for computation of demand which is not permissible. The basis of applying different freight rates to 20% and 80% of clearances is not clear. No actual determination of freight or insurance amount was done. The SCN is the foundation on which department must build its case and if allegations are vague, it is sufficient to hold that noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations as per Supreme Court judgment in CCE vs. Brindavan Beverages. The demand being vague is liable to be set aside on this ground itself - Demand set aside - Extended period of limitation - Absence of fraud or suppression - Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked where there is no fraud, collusion, suppression or wilful misstatement and all facts were known to department - HELD - There has been no fraud, collusion, suppression or wilful misstatement by appellant on the part of appellant. The fact regarding inclusion of freight in price was informed to department as early as September 1996 in price list and in subsequent correspondences. All facts were in the knowledge of department as yearly audits were conducted. No evidence of separate collection of freight from customers has been produced except bald statement in internal report. Appellant has been regularly filing price lists with jurisdictional officers. Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where facts were known to department at the time of filing of price lists - Demand set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-848-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Maintainability of Writ Petition despite availability of statutory appeal remedy - Demand on basis of unaccounted transactions discovered during search at third party premises - Whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution can be invoked notwithstanding availability of efficacious statutory remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act - HELD - Although statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 is available, High Court may entertain writ petition in exceptional circumstances where there is breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-843-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Maintainability of writ petition when alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available - The Petitioner challenged the Order-In-Original disallowing Input Tax Credit and levying tax and penalty - The Petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as seized documents were not made available to it before passing the order - Whether principles of natural justice violation constitutes exceptional case to depart from requirement to exhaust statutory remedies – HELD - The impugned Order is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of CGST Act. As per pre... [Read more]

2026-VIL-842-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Levy of Interest on self-assessed tax deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger - Recovery proceedings under Section 79 of CGST Act - Petitioner challenged garnishee notices issued for recovery of interest on self-assessed tax for financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22. The Petitioner submitted representations regarding interest computation contending that interest can be levied only up to the date of deposit in Electronic Cash Ledger. Without adjudicating the representations the Respondent initiated garnishee proceedings - Whether garnishee proceedings can be initiated for interest liability without prior adjudication under S... [Read more]

2026-VIL-860-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Anticipatory bail – Allegation of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit - Petitioners purchased aluminium scrap from suppliers and obtained invoices. After a raid by authorities, suppliers were arrested for issuing concocted invoices for bogus supply of goods resulting in wrongful availment of ITC - Petitioners were summoned under Section 70 and apprehended arrest. Petitioners claimed they had paid invoice value and tax to suppliers through bank transactions and filed periodic returns with invoices. Learned Sessions Court rejected their bail application - Whether registered purchasers who have complied with GST framework and paid through bank channels are entitled to anticipatory bail despite suppliers being involved in fraudulent activities - HELD - GST framework is built on self-assessment and voluntary compliance. Purchaser is entitled to input tax credit only if tax invoice is possessed, goods actually received, tax charged by supplier is paid by purchaser through proper channels, and returns are filed by recipient along with invoices - In present case petitioners are in possession of invoices, have paid invoice value and tax through bank transactions and have periodically filed returns. Principal offender under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is the supplier who has been granted regular bail. In genuine case where purchaser has paid invoice value and GST and submitted returns periodically, purchaser cannot be held liable for default of supplier except under exceptional circumstances - Custodial interrogation of purchaser not necessary unless prima facie material shows collusion with supplier. Nature of punishment prescribed maximum five years is compoundable offence under Section 138 of Act - Petitioners do not have antecedents and have undertaken to cooperate and produce documents to prove receipt of goods. Arrest cannot be made to merely investigate whether conditions are being met but only when Commissioner has formulated duly recorded opinion that requirements are satisfied based on evidence as held in Radhika Agarwal case - Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearing on specified date, personal bond, cooperation with authorities, mobile phone operational, location dropping on google map, and passport surrender - The petitions are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1408-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Vagueness of Show Cause Notice - Identification of taxable services and service recipients - Department issued Show Cause Notice invoking extended period of limitation raising demand on unbilled revenue reflected in balance sheet and difference between ST-3 returns and Income Tax returns - Whether Show Cause Notice is vague for not identifying category of services, service recipients and consideration and whether it is permissible to raise demand merely based on figures appearing in balance sheet and difference between tax returns - HELD - It is settled principle that for levying service tax, the category of services and recipient of services must be identified precisely with clarity. The SCN merely sets out audit objections and correspondence between parties without mentioning what service was provided, to whom and what was the consideration. The SCN does not specify the service rendered or the recipients thereof - A public sector company like the appellant would not intentionally withhold information with intent to evade payment of service tax. The correspondence made by the department with the appellant dwells on discrepancies in figures and there are no queries regarding nature of services - Merely because the appellant had registered itself for multiple service categories does not eliminate the obligation of the Department to identify specific services rendered. Though the revenue alleges non-cooperation by the appellant, it is difficult to believe that the department could not verify the nature of service rendered. The SCN cannot be sustained on a vague and non-committal basis without making even a remotely credible attempt to identify services and recipients. It is incumbent upon the department to identify services rendered and recipients thereof before fixing tax liability – Further, demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of figures in balance sheet or difference between tax returns without corroborative evidence establishing that such amounts are attributable to provision of services - The Show Cause Notice is not sustainable and the impugned order passed on basis thereof is set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1407-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Duplicate appeal registrations - Appellant filed service tax appeals against the same impugned order dated 11.12.2023 and due to technical and procedural error in the Registry, three additional appeal numbers were inadvertently generated and assigned against the exact same impugned order resulting in four separate appeal numbers filed by the appellant against the single impugned order - HELD - The three duplicate appeal registrations resulted from a procedural error in the Registry and serve no independent purpose as the dispute is already being agitated in the main appeal. Mere technical and procedural error... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1414-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Utilization of Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) for import of goods falling beyond the permissible scope of exemption notification - Import of capital goods - Scope of capital goods - Appellant, a manufacturer of steel products accorded Trading House status, imported goods such as gaskets, bushings, bearings, gear reducers, main springs, whims bottom parts and shock absorbers under Status Holder Incentive Scrips (SHIS) licences in January 2013 to November 2013 for setting up Coke Oven Plant, Pellet Plant, Arc Furnace, Steel Melting Shop, Blast Furnace and modernization of captive power plant - SCN issued alleging that the goods imported were parts/spares/components of capital goods and duty had been debited in excess of the permissible ceiling of 10% of the value of SHIS scrips, in violation of Conditions 4(i) and 4(iii) of Notification No. 104/2009-Cus. dated 14.09.2009. The lower authority confirmed demand of duty along with interest and penalty - Whether the goods imported by the appellant constitute capital goods under Notification 104/2009 or only parts/spares subject to 10% restriction - HELD - The definition of capital goods in Notification 104/2009 is of wide import and covers plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture or production, either directly or indirectly, including those required for replacement, modernization, technological upgradation or expansion - All the items imported by the appellant squarely fit within the definition of capital goods as defined in the Notification. The goods imported are not merely spares or parts but are capital goods required for modernization of the plant. The restriction of 10% applies only to components, spares or parts of capital goods imported earlier, and not to fresh import of capital goods including accessories. The appellant has correctly availed the benefit of Notification 104/2009 for import of the said goods - Demand of duty set aside and penalty is not sustainable – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1409-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Retrospective change in classification of goods - Absence of statutory provision for issuing Show Cause Notice for reclassification - Appellant manufactures various kinds of mobile lifting machinery including Hydraulic Truck Cranes and Rough-terrain Hydraulic Truck Cranes and has been clearing them for several years since introduction of 8-digit tariff entry in February 2005 by classifying the same under Central Excise Tariff Item 8426 12 00 - Department formed opinion that cranes were being mis-classified under CETI 8426 12 00 when they should have been classified under CETI 8426 41 00 as other machinery ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-132-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Gujarat AAR - Classification and applicable GST rate on washing and laundry soap in bar or cake form - Applicant contended products are toilet soaps or fall under toiletry definition as per Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955 and claimed 5% GST rate - Whether laundry soap and toilet soap fall under common heading or separate tariff heading and applicable HSN codes and GST rates - HELD - The definition of one statute having different object, purpose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. The definition in Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955 cannot ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-131-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Gujarat AAR - Classification and applicable GST Rate on Papad Khar - Food processing ingredient - Whether Papad Khar should be classified under HSN 2501 (Common Salts) at 5% or HSN 2102 (Prepared Food Additives) at 5% or should qualify for exemption under Notification 2/2017 - The applicant contended that Papad Khar is a traditional alkaline salt with composition of 70% sodium chloride, 15% sodium carbonate and 15% sodium bicarbonate used as food ingredient and should be classified under HSN 2501 or 2102 at 5% rate – HELD - Papad Khar does not qualify for HSN 2501 classification because its chemical composition ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-849-GUJ | High Court SGST

GST - Applicability of Notification No.53/2023-Central Tax to appeal against Order-in-Original passed under Section 74 of CGST Act – The appeal filed beyond period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of CGST Act, appellate authority rejected appeal solely on ground of delay - Government issued Notification No.53/2023-Central Tax dated 02.11.2023 following recommendations of GST Council to permit filing of appeals in exceptional cases - Whether notification extends to appeals which though pending were not yet rejected at time of issuance of Notification and which were filed after issuance of notification but before cut-off date of 31.01.2024 – HELD - The Notification No.53/2023-Central Tax applies to taxpayers who could not file appeal within prescribed period and whose appeals have been rejected on ground of delay, as well as to appeals pending before appellate authorities before issuance of notification which fulfill conditions of payment prescribed in paragraph 3 of notification - Proviso to paragraph 2 of notification manifests that appeal pending before appellate authority prior to issuance of notification dated 02.11.2023, fulfills conditions specified in paragraph 3 - The taxpayer who files appeal before extended cut-off date of 31.01.2024 and meets payment conditions cannot be put at lower pedestal compared to those taxpayers whose appeals were filed and got rejected on ground of delay and still permitted to file fresh appeals under the said Notification - When the impugned appellate order dated 11.06.2024 was passed, the Appellate authority was supposed to consider the Notification dated 02.11.2023, however Appellate authority is silent on the Notification and no cognizance of the Notification has been taken - The appellate authority cannot wait for the taxpayer to point out the provisions of the notification issued by the Government and it is to be presumed that any Notification issued by the Government will be known to the Appellate authority, more particularly, when it regulates the provision under Section 107 of the Act - The impugned Notice and Order are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the same on merits in accordance with law – The petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-846-ALH | High Court SGST

GST - Bail Application in GST Fraud Case - Fraudulent availment and passing on of ITC without actual supply of goods or services - Whether applicant entitled to bail despite serious economic offence involving Government loss of Rs.293.68 Crores and cognizable non-bailable offence under Section 132 of CGST Act - HELD - At pre-conviction stage there is presumption of innocence and object of keeping person in custody is to ensure availability at trial and to receive sentence not to be punitive. Article 21 of Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty except by procedure established by law which must b... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1402-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Levy of Social Welfare Surcharge when Basic Customs Duty is exempted - Whether appellant is liable to pay Social Welfare Surcharge when Basic Customs Duty is exempted in terms of Exemption Notifications No.24/2015-Cus and No.25/2015-Cus both dated 08.04.2015 - HELD - The said issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in its own case wherein it was held that since the Circular No.3/2022-Cus dated 01.02.2022 has clarified that the amount of Social Welfare Surcharge payable would be Nil in cases where the aggregate of Customs duties which form the base for computation of SWS is zero. Law does not require compu... [Read more]

2026-VIL-50-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Inclusion of GST in quantification of profiteered amount - Appellant contended that GST component should not be included in profiteered amount as GST was only collected tentatively and deposited with government and does not represent benefit retained by appellant - Whether GST component calculated on inflated base price constitutes part of profiteered amount to be refunded to homebuyers - HELD – The profiteered amount represents total extra consideration extracted from homebuyer unlawfully. When homebuyer was charged GST on inflated base price resulting from non-passing of ITC benefit, the homebuyer bore the entire burden of such extra GST which was deposited by developer with government. To restore homebuyer to position that would have existed if benefit was passed on, homebuyer must be refunded entire extra amount paid including GST component on that extra amount - GST collected by supplier on additional realization has rightly been included in profiteered amount. Economic reality is that homebuyer bore additional cost including GST component - GST component at 12% is correctly included in profiteered amount and total profiteered amount – Ordered accordingly - Anti-Profiteering - Determination of recipient for restitution of profiteered amount - Appellant contended that net profiteered amount should be deposited into Consumer Welfare Fund under Rule 133(3)(c) of CGST Rules on ground that eligible persons (homebuyers) have not claimed return and are not identifiable particularly after formation of cooperative housing society and transfer of project - Whether rule providing for deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund applies when recipients are alleged to be unidentifiable despite records showing buyer-wise details - HELD - The Rule 133(3)(c) is residuary provision and is attracted only in those cases where eligible recipients are genuinely unidentified despite exercise of due diligence. Expression not identifiable cannot be interpreted to mean that recipient has not filed complaint, is not presently available or that computation has not initially been made. Identification of recipient is factual determination based on transaction records and not procedural one dependent on filing of complaint or claim. DGAP has clearly stated that consumers are identifiable to investigation report contains buyer-wise details of profiteering amount for 128 units - Real estate developer is expected to maintain exhaustive records of each homebuyer including name, address, unit number, area of flat, agreement value and amounts received. Fact that developer may not have current contact details does not mean they are not identifiable in eyes of law. Records of project contain names and details of original allottees - Net profiteered amount is not liable to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund and must be returned to individual homebuyers - Anti-Profiteering - Set-off of excess benefits passed to some customers against profiteering liability owed to other customers - Whether Tribunal possesses power to direct set-off and recovery of excess amounts from consumers or whether statutory obligation is owed to distinct entities separately - HELD - Section 171 of CGST Act mandates benefit of ITC shall be passed on to recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Statutory obligation is to recipient of supply and recipient is person entitled to benefit. Appellant cannot claim set-off of excess payment made to some customers against liability owed to other customers as obligations are owed to distinct and separate legal entities - Tribunal does not possess any power to direct customers to refund excess amount as provision of Section 171 does not contemplate such direction. Power of tribunal under CGST Act is circumscribed by statutory framework and is limited to ensuring that benefit of ITC is passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Act does not confer power on tribunal to order recovery of amounts from consumers or permit set-off of such amounts against liability of supplier to other consumers – The plea for set-off is rejected and appellant cannot deny legitimate claims of remaining 128 customers by seeking adjustment against overcompensation of others - Anti-Profiteering - Interest on profiteered amount - Whether interest at eighteen percent per annum is payable from date of collection of higher amount till actual refund and from which date should interest be computed - HELD - The Delhi High Court in Reckitt Benckiser case explicitly held that Rule 133(3)(b) of CGST Rules providing for interest at 18% per annum is valid enabling provision. Section 171 is broad enough to empower central government to prescribe penalty and interest to ensure that suppliers are deterred from pocketing benefits meant for consumers - However in practical application where profiteering is computed on project-completion basis with per-square-feet benefit determined on project-wide basis it is not possible to determine exact date each homebuyer paid higher amount for each square foot. Therefore interest shall be computed from date of payment of last instalment by each homebuyer which represents date on which final consideration was collected and serves as reasonable and justifiable benchmark for commencement of interest liability - Interest is payable at 18% per annum from date of payment of last instalment by each homebuyer till date of actual refund - Anti-Profiteering - Imposition of penalty for contravention of Section 171 - Appellant contended that Section 171(3A) providing for ten percent penalty was inserted with effect from 01.01.2020 and cannot be applied retrospectively to period when provision was not in force - Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) can be imposed where entire period of alleged contravention was completed prior to date on which penalty provision came into force - HELD - Section 171(3A) of CGST Act was inserted vide Section 112 of Finance (No.2) Act 2019 with effect from 01.01.2020 - Upon examination of facts period of contravention during which appellant is alleged to have profiteered is from 01.07.2017 to 30.10.2019 which is evident from investigation report wherein profiteering is computed for period from July 2017 to October 2019. Appellant received Occupancy Certificate for project on 30.10.2019. Entire period of contravention stands fully completed on 30.10.2019 which is prior to coming into force of Section 171(3A) on 01.01.2020. Since alleged contravention stands fully completed on 30.10.2019 prior to enforcement of Section 171(3A) with effect from 01.01.2020 the said penalty provision has no application to facts of present case. Penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to period when it was not in force - Appellant is not liable to pay any penalty under Section 171(3A). [Read less]

2026-VIL-850-TEL | High Court SGST

GST - Applicability of certification requirement under Rule 89(2)(m) of CGST Rules, 2017 to refund claims for interest on principal amounts already refunded - Claim for interest over amount already refunded in terms of Section 56 of CGST Act - Refund sanctioning authority raised Deficiency Memos insisting upon certification under Rule 89(2)(m) of CGST Rules - Whether certification requirement under Rule 89(2)(m) prescribing that incidence of tax, interest or any other amount claimed as refund has not been passed on to any other person applies to claims for interest component over principal amounts already refunded and sanc... [Read more]

2026-VIL-49-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Non-passing of benefit of Input Tax Credit in Real Estate Project - Applicability of Anti-profiteering provisions despite subsequent notification curtailing fresh requests - Complainant purchased flat in residential project "Morning Raaga" developed by appellant and alleged that appellant charged complete twelve percent GST in 2017 without passing on benefit of ITC through commensurate reduction in price - Whether appellant has contravened provisions of Section 171(1) of CGST Act by failing to pass on ITC benefit and whether proceedings maintainable in light of Notification No.19/2024-Central Tax dated 30.09.2024 - HELD - The Section 171(1) casts statutory obligation on every registered person to pass on benefit of ITC to recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices. Investigation revealed that during pre-GST period no eligible CENVAT credit was available but in post-GST period appellant became entitled to avail ITC of GST on inputs and input services used in construction - DGAP determined that appellant availed ITC amounting to Rs.1,73,84,508 representing 10.63 percent of purchase value during post-GST period. Upon applying additional ITC benefit of 10.63 percent to purchase value and apportioning on basis of saleable area the benefit worked out to Rs.80.94 per square foot resulting in base profiteered amount of Rs.84,94,491. After addition of GST at 12 percent total profiteered amount was Rs.95,13,829 - Appellant failed to place material on record demonstrating error in revised computation or that quantified benefit was actually passed on to homebuyers. Notification No.19/2024 merely restricts acceptance of new requests after specified date and does not affect proceedings already commenced before competent authority. Mere pendency of challenge to constitutional validity before higher forum does not operate as stay of proceedings unless competent court issues specific stay order. Appellant has neither challenged provisions before any court nor obtained interim order or stay against present proceedings - Appellant is held to have contravened Section 171(1) and is directed to pass on profiteered amount along with 18% interest to eligible homebuyers. No penalty imposed as period of contravention does not extend beyond 01.01.2020 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-845-MAD | High Court SGST

IGST/Customs - Subsequent demand for differential duty and penalty after payment of differential duty pursuant to audit objections - Appellant imported motor vehicle parts and claimed benefit of lower IGST rate of 18% under Serial No.452L of Schedule III to Notification No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Department contended goods were classifiable under Serial No.170 attracting IGST at 28% - Whether proceedings under Section 28(4) of Customs Act could be initiated after appellant had already paid entire differential duty with interest pursuant to audit objections and whether proceedings were barred by limitation – HELD - Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies where duty has not been levied, short-levied or short-paid for reasons other than collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Section 28(4) applies only where short levy or short payment is by reason of such conduct - In present case relevant date is when audit objections were treated as closed after appellant paid entire differential duty with interest. Even assuming Section 28(1) applies, SCN ought to have been issued within prescribed period but was issued more than three years later making proceedings clearly barred by limitation under Section 28(1) - Section 28(2) further provides that where person pays duty with applicable interest under Section 28(1) and informs proper officer of such payment, no show cause notice shall thereafter be issued in respect of duty, interest or any penalty relating thereto. Show cause notice does not contain specific allegation of wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of material facts but merely states appellant wrongly availed benefit of lower IGST rate - Absence of essential ingredients required under Section 28(4) means extended period cannot be invoked. Plea of suppression raised for first time in counter affidavit cannot supplement contents of show cause notice - Existence of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 128 is not absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction or barred by limitation - Impugned order is set aside and writ petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-857-GUJ-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Refund of service tax collected and deposited by petitioner and subsequently recovered from service recipient – Rejection of refund claim on ground of limitation – Petitioner engaged in providing manpower recruitment and supply agency services, collected service tax during the period when such services were subject to reverse charge mechanism from 01.04.2015 onwards - subsequently the service recipient was audited and found liable to pay the same service tax under reverse charge mechanism and accordingly paid service tax to the Department and issued a debit note to the petitioner - Petitioner filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which was rejected by the Department on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the appeal preferred by petitioner before the appellate authority was also dismissed – Whether refund claim of petitioner can be rejected solely on the ground of limitation when the Department itself recovered the service tax twice, first from the petitioner and thereafter from the service recipient while retaining the amount earlier deposited by petitioner – HELD – The refund claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground of limitation in these peculiar and exceptional circumstances where the Department has become the beneficiary of unjust enrichment by collecting service tax twice, first from the petitioner despite having no authority in law to do so after 01.04.2015 and thereafter from the service recipient, while the petitioner became aware of such position only when the service recipient issued the debit note thereby constrained to file the refund application. In such exceptional circumstances when the Department itself committed illegality by accepting tax deposited without authority in law and subsequently collecting the same tax again from the service recipient, the respondent authorities cannot reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation – The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within six weeks, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the prescribed rate per annum until the date of actual payment – The petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-855-GUJ-CE | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Refund of duty paid on galleries of stenter machines – Rejection of refund claims on ground that determination of Annual Production Capacity was not challenged and presumption against appellants under Section 12B could not be discharged – Appellants engaged in manufacture of excisable goods under compounded levy scheme filed refund claims for duty paid on galleries of stenter machines for the period from 16.12.1998 to 28.02.2000, contending that galleries should not be included in the dimensions of hot air stenter for determining Annual Production Capacity - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals holding the levy unconstitutional and accordingly not governed by the provisions of Section 11B and Section 12B - Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals observing that the principle of unjust enrichment and consequently refund claims cannot be sustained – Whether the determination of Annual Production Capacity is an appealable order and whether the principle of unjust enrichment applies when the levy is unconstitutional – HELD – The determination of Annual Production Capacity by the prescribed authority is an administrative exercise and not a quasi-judicial order and therefore does not give rise to any appealable order, consequently where a refund claim arises on account of erroneously collected duty on account of inclusion of galleries in the Annual Production Capacity, the assessee is entitled to claim refund without challenging the determination of Annual Production Capacity - When the levy itself is found to be unconstitutional as clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Rules of 2000, the provisions of Section 11B relating to limitation and the burden under Section 12B to prove that duty was not passed on to third parties would not apply as the principle of unjust enrichment enunciated in Mafatlal Industries applies only to levies which are otherwise valid but erroneously collected, and not to levies which are unconstitutional – The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is restored with a direction to the Commissioner to redetermine the Annual Production Capacity of the appellant excluding the galleries of the stenter in accordance with the applicable Rules and thereafter determine the duty payable and process the refund claim accordingly - Tax Appeals are dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-844-MAD | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Penalty for wilful suppression of turnover - Invokability of penalty provision without specific mention of expression "wilfully suppressed" in assessment order - Appellant submitted turnover in Form-WW but omitted the same from monthly returns filed throughout the financial year, which omission was discovered only after inspection of records by authorities after deemed assessment was completed - Whether penalty under Section 27(3)(b) of TNVAT Act for wilful suppression of turnover can be invoked when assessment order does not specifically use the expression "wilfully suppressed" but facts reflect... [Read more]

2026-VIL-854-MAD-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Waiver of penalties imposed for short-payment of service tax under Business Support Service category – Penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act – Appellant-Department filed appeals challenging the Tribunal's order of setting aside the penalties – Whether the Tribunal was right in waiving the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 by invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act based on the plea of financial incapacity and non-wilful short-payment of service tax – HELD – When an assessee establishes financial incapacity or financial distress and that the short-payment of tax was not wilf... [Read more]

2026-VIL-847-P&H | High Court SGST

GST - Initiation of proceedings under Section 73 and 74 of GST Acts in respect of credits avail credits availed under erstwhile VAT regime - HELD - The controversy raised in present petitions has been conclusively determined by Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin Limited. The judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited case followed the same reasoning and was also upheld by Supreme Court when SLP was dismissed. Court is in respectful agreement with view taken in Usha Martin Limited. Initiation of proceedings in respect of credits availed in erstwhile VAT regime cannot be adjudicated – The writ petition... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements