More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-1083-DEL | High Court SGST

GST – Concurrent jurisdiction and parallel proceedings – Investigation into fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit on invoices without corresponding actual supply of goods – State GST authorities initiated proceedings under Section 73 of DGST Act, which resulted in orders. Simultaneously, Central tax authorities (DGGI/DZU) initiated parallel proceedings under Section 74 of CGST Act for the same period and subject matter - Whether Central authorities' proceedings are barred by Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act which provides for embargo on parallel proceedings when the subject matter is the same - HELD - The proceedings initiated by both State and Central authorities relate to the same subject matter and concern fraudulent availment of ITC for the identical assessment period. However, the position as on date is materially different from the position which existed when the writ petition was instituted. The challenge is no longer confined to a SCN. An Order-in-Original has since been passed determining the liability of the Petitioner. Once an Order-in-Original has been passed, the petitioner has an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act - The High Court should not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such circumstances as the petitioner is not left without remedy - The question whether the two sets of proceedings concern the “same subject matter” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act would require factual examination – Further, the issue regarding applicability of Section 6(2)(b) embargo on concurrent jurisdiction becomes academic when a substantive order has been passed and statutory appeal remedy is available – The mere fact that the Writ Petition had been instituted before the passing of the Order-in-Original would not require this Court to adjudicate the challenge to the Order-in-Original in the first instance, particularly when the statutory appellate mechanism is available after the adjudication order has been passed - The petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy of appeal rather than writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed and petitioner is relegated to statutory remedy [Read less]

2026-VIL-1085-DEL | High Court SGST

GST – Concurrent jurisdiction and parallel proceedings – Receiving of fraudulent Input Tax Credit invoices from a supplier without actual supply of goods – SGST authorities initiated proceedings under Section 73 and passed order. Subsequently, CGST authorities initiated parallel proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 based on investigation revealing fraudulent Input Tax Credit through bogus transactions - Whether Central proceedings under Section 74 are barred by Section 6(2)(b) when State proceedings under Section 73 already dealt with same subject matter – HELD – The expression "same subject matter" refers to the particular liability or contravention sought to be adjudicated. Distinct infractions would not become same subject matter merely because they relate to same assessee, period or involve similar tax liability. Although both relate to Input Tax Credit from same supplier, the nature of allegation is materially different. State proceedings concerned general Input Tax Credit demand whereas Central proceedings were specifically founded on investigation regarding fraudulent availment through transactions without actual supply of goods - State proceedings did not adjudicate upon allegation that transactions were bogus. Petitioner failed to establish that very contravention of fraudulent availment through bogus transactions had already been adjudicated by State authority. Central proceedings are not ex facie barred by Section 6(2)(b). Impugned Orders are appealable under Section 107 of CGST Act - Where issues require examination of adjudication record and disputed questions of fact, High Court ordinarily does not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in substitution of statutory appellate mechanism. Petitioner has not established exceptional circumstances warranting interference – The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail statutory remedy of appeal under the CGST Act - Applicability of Section 6(2)(b) – HELD - The mere fact that both proceedings relate to the same Financial Year and involve Input Tax Credit of the same amount cannot by themselves establish identity of subject matter; for the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) to operate, it is necessary to establish identity of the liability or contravention which forms the subject matter of the two proceedings - The difference in GSTINs of supplier referred to in the two Central proceedings is a relevant circumstance while determining whether the proceedings relate to the same supplier and the same subject matter, but such difference cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive and the nature of the liability and the contravention alleged in the respective proceedings has to be examined - The statutory appellate authority, while examining the appeals, would be competent to consider the complete record and determine whether there is any duplication or overlapping liability in accordance with law. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1082-DEL | High Court SGST

GST – Validity of search and seizure of advocate's premises and protection of confidential client material, Investigation into petitioner’s role beyond that of an Advocate providing professional services - Petitioner, an advocate, challenged search conducted at the office premises and in the cabin used by the petitioner, as well as seizure of CPU and documents – Authorisation for search under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 on the basis that the petitioner was rendering professional services to a company and allegedly was himself involved in the affairs and operations of the company under investigation - Whether the search conducted at the office of an advocate could be held to be unauthorized merely on the ground that the petitioner is an advocate and advocate-client privilege operates as an bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself – HELD - The search of the premises of an advocate, including the cabin used by the petitioner, was carried out pursuant to a valid authorization issued under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and cannot be held to be unauthorized merely because the petitioner is an advocate - The question is whether the Dept had material which warranted investigation into the petitioner’s role beyond that of an Advocate providing professional services to MTPL assumes significance because the protection available to professional communications cannot be equated with an immunity from investigation into the Advocate’s own conduct or activities, where such activities are themselves the subject matter of investigation - The protection of advocate-client privilege is intended to preserve confidentiality of communications made in the course of professional relationship between an advocate and his client, and does not follow merely from the fact that material is found in the office or possession of an advocate - Material relating to the independent affairs, transactions or activities of the advocate himself cannot, merely by reason of its being found in his office, be placed beyond the reach of a lawful investigation. Such privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the conduct of the advocate himself where the respondents have placed prima facie material indicating that the petitioner may have acted beyond the role of a legal adviser – The search of the premises of the firm, including the cabin used by the Petitioner, was carried out pursuant to a valid authorization issued under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and cannot be held to be unauthorized merely because the petitioner is an Advocate - The writ petition is dismissed with interim orders regarding safeguards for examination and identification of privileged and confidential material belonging to third-party clients being maintained – The Writ Petition is dismissed - Petitioner contends that the Respondents having earlier stated that the person looking after the operations and finances and was the main key person for the company, now alleging that the petitioner was also actively involved in the affairs of MTPL – HELD - In the considered view of the Court, there is no inconsistency in the two stands merely because the investigation has subsequently brought forth material concerning the role of another person - An investigation is not static and, with the progress of investigation and collection of further material, the Investigating Agency is entitled to examine the role of persons who may subsequently emerge as having a connection with the transactions under investigation. The fact that a particular person was earlier described as the person looking after the operations or finances of the company does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of another person having an active or consequential role. The subsequent attribution of a role to the Petitioner, therefore, cannot, without more, be characterised as a change of stand or as changing the goalpost - Validity of Search - Adherence to Instructions No.02/2022 and the Master Circular – HELD - The statutory power of search under Section 67 of the CGST Act has to be exercised in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the statute. Administrative instructions and circulars may regulate the manner in which such power is to be exercised, but cannot curtail or extinguish a power which the statute itself confers upon the competent authority. Therefore, even if there has been some deviation from the procedure contained in the aforesaid instructions, such deviation would have to be examined in the context of the statutory requirements and the legality of the authorization. In the absence of any demonstrated violation of a mandatory statutory requirement affecting the validity of the authorization or the jurisdiction to conduct the search, such procedural deviation would not, by itself, warrant declaring the entire search illegal - The mere allegation of non-compliance with an administrative procedure, in the absence of any demonstration that the statutory authorization itself was invalid or that the search was conducted without jurisdiction, would not render the search void ab initio - Protection of advocate-client privilege – HELD - The present judgment may not be construed as laying down any general proposition that the status of an Advocate, or the professional relationship between an Advocate and his client, does not attract the protection of advocate-client privilege. The protection accorded to such confidential communications remains an important safeguard in the administration of justice. The conclusion reached in the present case is confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances, where the Respondents have placed material indicating that the Petitioner’s own role and conduct, and not merely the confidential communications between an Advocate and his client, form part of the subject matter of investigation - Nothing contained in this judgment shall be understood as permitting an unrestricted search of an Advocate’s premises or as diluting the protection available to genuinely privileged communications and confidential client material in accordance with law. [Read less]

2026-VIL-105-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST – Classification of supply of food to hospital in-patients by third party caterer, Composite Supply of healthcare service or supply of restaurant service – Appellant outsourced caterer supplied food to in-patients of medical institution under contractual agreement with hospital – Whether supply of food to in-patients by outsourced caterer constitutes composite supply of healthcare service exempt from GST or constitutes taxable supply of restaurant service – HELD - Supply by outsourced caterer does not constitute composite supply within meaning of Section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017 because caterer makes only single supply of food and not two or more taxable supplies naturally bundled together - The Board's clarification No. 32/06/2018-GST dated 12.02.2018 regarding composite supply of healthcare service applies only to healthcare service provider directly supplying food to in-patients as part of healthcare service, not to outsourced caterers - The caterer supplied food to hospital under agreement and hospital is direct recipient of supply though food ultimately consumed by in-patients. Caterer was under mistaken belief that Board's clarification applies to their supply but such clarification has no bearing on caterer's supply. Outsourced caterer liable to pay GST on food supplied for in-patient consumption – The FAA, without understanding the clarification of the Board, has erred in concluding that the supplies in the hands of the Respondent is that of composite supply. However, the respondent is entitled to cum-tax-benefit under Rule 35; proper officer directed to re-determine liability extending cum-tax valuation benefit - The order impugned is set aside and Revenue appeal is partly allowed - Levy of Penalty under Section 74 – Respondent-caterer did not separately invoice tax on food supplied to in-patients from January 2018 to November 2021 and claimed benefit of Board's clarification on composite healthcare supply – Whether penalty under Section 74 of CGST Act for fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax is applicable – HELD - Invoking Section 74 requires establishment of ingredients of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. Caterer relied upon Board's clarification albeit mistakenly and did not deliberately choose not to pay tax. This constitutes gross error in understanding provisions of law and clarification, not deliberate evasion or mala fide intention. No concrete evidence establishes necessity for invoking Section 74. Department's own proposal of penalty under Section 122 was dropped by Adjudicating Authority further fortifying that caterer did not deliberately opt against payment of tax - Under Section 75(2), since charges of fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax not established, show cause notice shall be deemed issued under Section 73(1) and proper officer shall determine tax payable accordingly - Appeal allowed to extent that normal demand procedure under Section 73 applies instead of fraud procedure under Section 74; proper officer directed to re-determine liability considering demand as issued under Section 73(1) - Cum-Tax Valuation and Rule 35 Benefit - Caterer issued invoices for food supply without separately identifying tax component; values represented in invoices admittedly inclusive of any tax to be charged from January 2018 to November 2021 – Whether differential tax should be calculated on entire invoice value or whether benefit of cum-tax principle under Rule 35 of CGST Rules, 2017 should be extended when tax component not separately invoiced – HELD - Rule 35 provides formula for determining tax amount where value of supply is inclusive of integrated tax or central tax or state tax. Present case falls within scope of Rule 35 - Since caterer did not collect tax separately from recipients and no allegation that caterer collected tax over and above invoice value, declared invoice value must be treated as inclusive of tax. Tax component must be extracted in accordance with formula prescribed under Rule 35 – Respondent is entitled to benefit of Rule 35 even though not specifically claimed, as this ensures tax correctly calculated in accordance with prescribed rule and authorities must collect only legally due tax neither more nor less. Proper officer directed to recompute differential tax liability by treating declared value as cum-tax and applying Rule 35 formula after verifying invoices and ascertaining that no amount as tax was collected during period for supplies made for in-patients – Appeal allowed with modification. [Read less]

2026-VIL-106-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Jurisdiction of First Appellate Authority to Condone Delay in preferring appeal – Multiple taxpayers-Respondents whose GST registrations were cancelled for failure to file monthly returns for six consecutive months failed to seek revocation within prescribed thirty-day period and instead filed appeals before First Appellate Authority after expiry of statutory period under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - First Appellate Authority condoned delay by relying upon High Court of Telangana decisions - Whether First Appellate Authority possessed jurisdiction to condone delay beyond maximum period prescribed under Section 107(4) of CGST Act – HELD - Section 107(1) prescribes ordinary period of three months for preferring appeal from date of communication of order, while Section 107(4) empowers First Appellate Authority to condone delay only for further period of one month subject to sufficient cause, making maximum condonable period four months - The First Appellate Authority is creature of statute and must act within four corners of enactment; its jurisdiction is conditioned and circumscribed by provisions of Section 107. While High Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to mould relief and condone delay in interests of justice, such constitutional power cannot by judicial osmosis be transplanted to statutory authority - Orders of High Court rendered in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in peculiar facts and circumstances of those proceedings cannot enlarge statutory jurisdiction of appellate authority. The principle that equity follows law cannot be invoked by statutory authority to override express legislative prescription - First Appellate Authority exceeded bounds of statutory jurisdiction and exercised power ultra vires Section 107 by condoning delay beyond statutory outer limit – First Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone inordinate delay in filing appeals - Effect of Departmental Implementation on Maintainability of Appeals - Departmental appeal against order allowing revocation of cancelled registration – Department implemented First Appellate Authority's order by restoring registration of taxpayers who thereafter resumed business operations and continue to carry on legitimate business – Whether Department's appeals remain maintainable after Department has acted upon and implemented impugned orders – HELD - After impugned orders were passed, Department acted upon them and restored registrations of concerned respondents. Having implemented those orders and altered respondents' legal and commercial position, Department cannot now seek to invalidate same orders without addressing consequences of its own action. Restoration of registration is subsequent and material development relevant to adjudication which resulted in practical relief sought by respondents and enabled them to resume business activities and comply with statutory obligations. If appeals were allowed, restored registrations would again become liable to cancellation including with retrospective effect, imperiling validity of genuine transactions undertaken by respondents during intervening period, equally without any default on their part - Department, having accepted and implemented impugned orders by restoring registrations, has forfeited practical opportunity to challenge them at belated stage. Department cannot simultaneously rely upon impugned orders for restoring registrations and seek their annulment without explaining or reversing consequences of restoration – Further, Even if departmental objections regarding statutory limitation accepted in principle, no effective relief can presently be granted as department has already acted upon orders and implemented them. Proceedings are futile and constitute avoidable invocation of tribunal's jurisdiction – Department's appeals are disposed of as not maintainable having regard to implementation of impugned orders and restoration of registrations. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1634-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit Refund - Correlation and Duty Burden – Appellant claimed refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on inputs which could not be utilised because finished goods were fully exported - Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 11/2002-CE(NT) was rejected by authorities for want of one-to-one correlation between duty paid inputs and exported goods, item-wise correlation, and other deficiencies - Whether refund could be denied for want of one-to-one correlation and item-wise shipping bill-wise correlation between inputs and exports - HELD - Refund cannot be denied for want of one-to-one correlation between inputs and exports. Neither the rule nor the governing circular requires separate records of exclusive use or one-to-one item-wise correlation. It is sufficient that inputs were used in manufacture of goods which were in fact exported and credit had become incapable of utilisation - The Range Officer's report verified purchase orders, designs and export documents confirming that goods manufactured were properly exported with connected documents produced. Finding denying refund premised on a demand for correlation which law does not require is opposed to the Range Officer's report as it stands on record. The demand for recovery founded on treating refund as erroneous loses its foundation once that finding is reversed – The appeal allowed - Cenvat Credit Refund - Binding Effect of Appellate Finding on Drawback - Appellant claimed refund after full repayment of drawback earlier availed. In earlier appellate order, Commissioner had found that full repayment of drawback removes the bar on refund under Rule 5, based on precedent. Department did not appeal this order - Whether the finding in earlier appellate order that drawback repayment removes the bar on refund remained binding at later stages when department chose not to appeal it - HELD - The finding that full repayment of drawback restores assessee to position where refund is not barred remains conclusive at later stages of same proceeding when not appealed by department. The principle of res judicata operates between different stages of same proceeding so that a finding recorded at earlier stage and not carried further binds parties at later stages. Appealability of an order as whole is distinct from finality of a specific finding within it. The order remanded only documentary verification of quantum and did not remand the separate legal question whether drawback repayment removes bar. That question was answered in favour of appellant and department chose not to appeal - A remand confined to one aspect cannot be standing licence to reopen every other finding each time matter returns in fresh round. Denial of refund on drawback ground was not sustainable – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1637-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Eligibility to CENVAT Credit upon debonding from Export Oriented Unit to Domestic Tariff Area unit – Appellant was engaged in manufacture of cotton terry towels under EOU scheme and subsequently exited the EOU scheme by debonding procedure with permission from Development Commissioner, MEPZ, and became a DTA unit at the same premises – At time of debonding, appellant paid applicable duties on imported and indigenous capital goods, inputs and consumables lying with the unit and availed CENVAT credit of duties so paid – Department alleged that appellant had deliberately exited EOU scheme and availed inadmissible credit with intention of obtaining rebate on exported finished goods – Whether upon debonding and commencement of manufacture as Domestic Tariff Area unit, appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit of eligible duties paid at debonding on raw materials, inputs and capital goods under Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 – HELD – Upon debonding and commencement of manufacture as Domestic Tariff Area unit, appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit of eligible duties paid at debonding on inputs and capital goods. Fact that goods had originally been procured or held without payment of duty while operating as EOU does not disentitle appellant from taking credit of duty subsequently paid at time of debonding. Eligibility under Rule 3 and compliance with documentary requirements of Rule 9 must be considered together - Where duty paid at debonding is eligible duty under Rule 3 and prescribed documentary requirements are satisfied, credit cannot be denied merely because goods had earlier been held as EOU. Proviso to Rule 3(1) inserted by Notification No. 35/2008 cannot restrict credit only to amount of Central Excise duty on capital goods - The decision of Tribunal in AVO Carbon case relied upon by Revenue was overruled by Hon'ble Madras High Court in Stanadyne Amalgamations case. Following consistent position in subsequent Tribunal decisions, CENVAT credit lying in balance on date of debonding could be transferred and utilised by DTA unit. Department's allegation that appellant deliberately exited scheme to obtain inadmissible credit is without merit. Assessee is free to manage its business in its own best interest and department cannot speculate on commercial decisions so long as no blame worthy conduct is involved – Appeal of appellant is allowed and appeal of Commissioner is rejected [Read less]

2026-VIL-1636-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Anti-Dumping Duty – Maintainability of proceedings for recovery of short-levied duties after expiry of levy notification – Appellant imported parts of wind operated electricity generators, classifiable under tariff heading 85030090, which fell within the scope of countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty notifications issued for castings for wind operated electricity generators – The Department issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, and appellant contended that proceedings could not be initiated after the notifications had expired – Whether recovery proceedings initiated after expiry of the relevant levy notifications are legally maintainable – HELD – Proceedings for recovery of duties short-levied or not levied can be maintained even after expiry of the relevant levy notification, provided the liability accrued during the currency of the notification. The taxable event is the importation of goods, and where goods were imported while the notification was operative and in force, the subsequent expiry of the notification does not extinguish such liability nor does it render recovery proceedings unsustainable under Section 28. Expiry by efflux of time is conceptually distinct from repeal, rescission or amendment. The expiry of a procedural provision or notification cannot obliterate or defeat substantive liability, nor can it extinguish the statutory power to recover duties otherwise lawfully recoverable. Section 28 provides the statutory machinery for demand and recovery of duties that have escaped assessment or collection, notwithstanding the subsequent expiry of the notification. Any interpretation treating expiry as equivalent to repeal would produce anomalous consequences by unsettling concluded actions undertaken during the notification's validity – The appeal is allowed on this issue - Customs – Advance Authorisation Scheme – Entitlement to exemption from countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty – Appellant effected imports under valid Advance Authorisations issued under the Foreign Trade Policy and satisfied the prescribed export obligations as evidenced by Export Obligation Discharge Certificates, Redemption Certificates, Chartered Accountant's Certificates and bond discharge orders – Whether imports effected under valid Advance Authorisations with fulfilled export obligations are entitled to exemption from countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 18/2015-Customs – HELD – Imports effected under valid Advance Authorisations are entitled to exemption from countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty, provided the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 18/2015-Customs are duly fulfilled. The Notification expressly exempts materials imported against a valid Advance Authorisation from the whole of duty of customs, additional duties, safeguard duty, countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty, subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions. The statutory scheme incorporates a comprehensive mechanism whereby exemption is granted at the time of import subject to the importer executing a bond and subsequently furnishing satisfactory evidence of fulfilment of export obligation. Once the competent licensing authority issues Export Obligation Discharge Certificates and Redemption Certificates, and the jurisdictional Customs authorities discharge and cancel the statutory bonds, the contingency contemplated for recovery of duty foregone ceases to exist. The Customs authorities cannot disregard valid and subsisting statutory acts and certificates issued by competent authorities in accordance with law. An Export Obligation Discharge Certificate is not a mere declaration but a statutory certificate issued after due verification and is entitled to full legal effect. The rights and liabilities of parties stand conclusively governed by the statutory mechanism embodied in the notification and cannot be determined on the basis of apprehension or speculation – The appeal is allowed and exemption cannot be denied - Customs – Anti-Dumping Duty – Scope of Product Under Consideration – Classification of imported goods as castings for wind operated electricity generators – Appellant contended that imported goods comprised forged components, machined assemblies, fabricated structures, electrical systems and non-casting products falling outside the scope of the Product Under Consideration, supported by technical literature, engineering drawings, metallurgical reports and test reports from CSIR National Metallurgical Laboratory – Whether imported goods answer the statutory description of castings for wind operated electricity generators falling within the scope of respective countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty notifications – HELD – The imported goods do not qualify as castings for wind operated electricity generators within the meaning of the Product Under Consideration. The notifications impose a product-specific levy based on the intrinsic character of the article as a casting, not merely its end-use in wind operated electricity generators. The burden lies upon the Revenue to establish by cogent technical and documentary evidence that each disputed article answers the statutory description of a casting. The Designated Authority has specified that only those goods which retain the essential character of a casting fall within the scope, whereas components manufactured through processes such as forging, fabrication, machining or assembly cannot be brought within scope merely because used ultimately in a wind operated electricity generator. The Department failed to adduce any expert reports, test reports or comparable technical evidence to rebut the appellant's technical material, including the CSIR National Metallurgical Laboratory report concluding that examined articles were forged components and not castings. Scientific evidence concerning manufacturing process of technically specialised engineering products constitutes relevant and material evidence which cannot be brushed aside without adequate reasons. The burden to show that appellant is exigible to tax is squarely on the Department, and this burden has not been discharged – No duty liability survives on the imported goods - Customs – Limitation – Invocation of extended period under Section 28 – Barring of demand for imports crossing statutory outer limit – Appellant contended that part of the demand related to imports which had already crossed the statutory outer limit of five years prescribed under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, and that an earlier show cause notice dated 29.01.2018 covering substantially similar imports demonstrated that the Department was already aware of the nature of goods – Whether demand relating to imports beyond the statutory outer limit of five years is sustainable, and whether the extended period can be invoked for substantially similar imports already covered by an earlier show cause notice – HELD – The demand insofar as it relates to imports falling beyond the statutory outer limit prescribed under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained. Section 28 itself prescribes the maximum period within which proceedings may be initiated by invoking the extended period, and any demand travelling beyond this maximum period is ex-facie barred by limitation. Further, where the Department has already issued a show cause notice on certain facts, it cannot ordinarily invoke the extended period again on the basis of the very same material, since suppression or wilful misstatement cannot be alleged in respect of facts already within its knowledge. The nature of appellant's imports was well known to the Department at the time of issuance of the earlier SCN, and therefore the Department cannot invoke the extended period of limitation once again. Suppression must be deliberate, wilful and with intention to evade duty, and a mere dispute relating to classi [Read less]

2026-VIL-1635-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Refund for service tax paid on ocean freight – Period of Limitation – Whether a refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where filed more than one year after payment, and whether such time-bar does not apply where the levy is held to be unconstitutional – HELD – The refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B. Clause (f) of Explanation (B) of Section 11B provides that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period is the date of payment of duty. Where the refund application is filed after expiry of one year from the date of payment, t... [Read more]

2026-VIL-102-GSTAT-LCK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A - Demand created on mechanical comparison without verification - Whether entire difference can be treated as ineligible ITC without examining reconciliation and supporting evidence and whether appellant received effective opportunity of hearing - HELD - The entire difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot be treated as ineligible ITC without examining the appellant's reconciliation and supporting evidence - The burden under Section 155 of the CGST Act, 2017 remains upon the appellant, however, the entire difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot be treated as ineligible ... [Read more]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST - Job Work Transaction - Value to be declared in E-way Bill for return of goods from job worker - Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 15(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Appellant received goods from job worker after completion of job work. Vehicle carrying goods was intercepted during movement from job worker's premises to petitioner's premises alleging goods were not accompanied by valid e-way bill and delivery challan – Levy of penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act - Appellant contended that movement was governed by Section 143 relating to job work and that consignment value under Rule 138 should be the job work service charges only, not the intrinsic value of principal's goods which were merely being returned - Whether value of goods on which job work has been undertaken is includable in the consignment value to be declared in e-way bill when goods are returned by job worker to principal after completion of job work - HELD - The invoice contains all mandatory particulars such as description, quantity and HSN of the goods, job work charges collected and GST paid on the said job work charges. Therefore, the impugned goods were accompanied by a valid tax paid invoice. Once the goods are accompanied by a valid tax paid invoice, there is no requirement of any delivery challan – As for Revenue contention that return-from-job-work movement, the e-way bill value should capture the original material value together with the job-work charges, on a conjoint reading of Rule 138 and Section 15, when goods belonging to principal are returned by job worker on completion of job work, the supply is of job work services only and not of the goods themselves. The value of the original goods on which have been subjected to job work is not includable in the consignment value of the goods which is to be reported in e-way bill. The value of the original goods which have been subjected to job work is not includable in the consignment value of the goods which is to be reported in e-way bill – Further, as per Explanation 2 to Rule 138, the consignment value of the goods is well below the threshold stipulated in Rule 138(1) for issue of e-way bill - The contention of the Dept that the e-way bill value should capture the original material value together with the job-work charges, is contrary to the statutory provisions and is not sustainable - The appellant’s contention that the present transport of job worked goods from the job worker to the principal would not be covered by the e-way bill regulations is legally correct. When issue of e-way bill itself was not mandatory in the instant case, any proceedings against the taxpayer on the grounds of defective e-way bill / lack of e-way bill are void ab initio – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-104-GSTAT-GZB | Tribunal SGST

GST - Monetary threshold limit for filing appeal before the GSTAT - Whether departmental appeal for penalty amount below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh can be admitted without establishing an applicable exception - HELD - A departmental appeal is governed by the monetary-limit framework prescribed for Departmental litigation. The right of appeal is a creature of statute and its exercise remains subject to the statutory and regulatory framework governing departmental litigation. The existence of an exception cannot be presumed merely because the Department desires to pursue the appeal - An exception is an exce... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1638-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Eligibility of CENVAT Credit availed CENVAT credit on various services including Brokerage and Commission, Detention Charges, Insurance Services, Membership Fees, Rent-a-Cab Service and Staff Welfare Expenses – Department alleged that these services were not categorized as input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and initiated proceedings leading to demand and penalty – Whether disputed services qualify as input service for purpose of availing CENVAT credit – HELD – Services relating to Brokerage and Commission, Detention Charges, Insurance and Membership Fees qualify as input services and appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit thereon - Brokerage and Commission services fall under sales promotion which is expressly included in definition of input service - Detention charges incurred in connection with imported goods and raw materials intended for manufacture of final products and included in value of goods for accounting purpose qualify as input service under main part of definition - Insurance premiums paid for insuring plant and machinery, stock and goods in transit at factory premises do not fall under exclusion and thus qualify as input service - Membership fees paid for participation in exhibitions and sales promotion activities have direct nexus with manufacture of goods and qualify as input service, more so after amendment w.e.f. 03.02.2016 providing that sales promotion includes services by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis - However, Rent-a-Cab service does not qualify as input service which appellant correctly reversed. Staff Welfare Expenses for canteen and transportation facilities do not qualify as input service - Wrong availment or utilization of CENVAT credit without involving fraud, collusion or misstatement attracts penalty of 10% of irregularly availed credit under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, not 50%. Quantum of penalty should be confined to 10% only for irregularly availed credit on Rent-a-Cab service and Staff Welfare Expenses – The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-97-GSTAT-TVP | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of IGST on Exports, Refund of excess tax paid – Clerical Errors in GST Returns - Appellant exported goods on payment of IGST and filed shipping bills and export invoices correctly with Customs. However, while filing GSTR-3B returns, appellant wrongly reported the export turnover and corresponding IGST in the column intended for domestic supplies instead of the column for zero-rated exports. Due to reporting error and resulting mismatch between shipping bill, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the Customs automated refund system did not process the refund. Subsequently, the Appellant paid the entire IGST amount again in a later return with correct entries in the appropriate column, which resulted in receiving the refund through Customs automated process - Appellant filed refund claim for the original IGST payment made during the earlier period. The Respondent rejected the refund applications on grounds of discrepancies in returns and claiming that the Appellant had already received the refund - Whether refund of excess IGST paid on export of goods can be denied on grounds of clerical errors in filing GSTR-3B returns when the export supplies were correctly reported in GSTR-1 returns and the amount was paid twice resulting in excess payment – HELD - Both the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) did not make any efforts to understand which amount is claimed as refund and which amount was refunded through automated system of Customs - The First Appellate authority mechanically rejected the appeals without going into the details of the GST Returns. It is clear on record, that the appellant has paid IGST once in the respective months of November-2018, December-2018, and February-2019, and once again in the month of August-2019 - Since IGST was paid twice with the second payment being refunded through Customs, the original payment stands as excess paid amount. Tax cannot be collected without authority of law and therefore excess paid amount is liable to be returned to appellant. A clerical mistake of making correct entries at wrong places, subsequently explained in reconciliation statements, is a minor procedural infraction and does not warrant denial of refund - Retaining excess payment of tax is hit by Article 265 of the Constitution. The principle of restitution and unjust enrichment mandates that revenue cannot retain amounts deposited twice when taxpayer has not erred in substance - The impugned order of first appellate authority quashed and set aside – The assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-98-GSTAT-TVP | Tribunal SGST

GST - Penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - Detention and seizure of goods in transit – Vague show cause notice lacking details and not citing specific statutory provisions - The vehicle transporting goods intercepted on the ground that the goods were found being unloaded at premises of an entity other than the consignee mentioned in the accompanying e-way bill and invoice - An order in form GST MOV-09 was issued levying tax and penalty under Section 129 on the charge of change of destination of delivery - The Appellant challenged the order contending that the show cause notice did not specify the exact provision... [Read more]

2026-VIL-103-GSTAT-GZB | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1067-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Consideration of Reply in Adjudication Order - Omission to Reproduce Reply in Order - Section 74 and 75(6) of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner filed detailed reply with voluminous compilation of supporting documents and appeared through counsel for personal hearing - Adjudication Order confirmed demand against petitioner but did not reproduce the reply in the order though it referred to written submissions and personal hearing, and petitioner contended that order violates Sections 74(9) and 75(6) requiring consideration of reply and statement of relevant facts and basis of decision - Whether non-reproduction of petitioner's reply in adjudication order establishes that reply was not considered - HELD - Mere non-reproduction of reply in order would not establish that it was ignored. What is material is whether order notices substance of defence and discloses basis on which claim has been rejected. Conversely, a general recital that replies have been considered cannot cure an order which otherwise discloses no reasons - In present case, filing of reply and appearance of petitioner's advocate at personal hearing are not disputed and reference in order to written submissions discloses that adjudicating authority considered reply. Though reasoning was common to noticees and did not separately analyse work orders, invoices and ledgers relied upon by petitioner, it disclosed basis on which claim to ITC was rejected by finding that invoices were unsupported by actual supplies and conditions for availing ITC were not fulfilled and that noticees failed to discharge burden cast under Section 155 - Examination of contention that documents place petitioner establish facts unproved by adjudicating authority would require matching of work orders issued with subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of execution, which can be effectively examined in appeal - The omission to reproduce reply does not warrant setting aside adjudication in exercise of writ jurisdiction – The writ petitions are disposed of - Jurisdiction of DGGI - Adjudication of common SCN - Jurisdiction of DGGI to proceed against taxpayers administratively assigned to State tax authorities – Validity of allocation of adjudication to Additional Commissioner Delhi North when common SCN involves noticees in multiple Commissionerates - Petitioner held three separate GST registrations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana administratively assigned to State tax authorities - DGGI Regional Unit conducted investigation into alleged chain of invoices issued without corresponding supplies extending across several States and issued common SCN to noticees including petitioner. Adjudication was allocated to Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi North - Whether administrative allocation of taxpayers assigned to State tax authorities excludes jurisdiction of DGGI to investigate and proceed and whether Additional Commissioner Delhi North had jurisdiction to adjudicate common SCN involving noticees in multiple Commissionerates - HELD - Notification 14/2017-Central Tax appoints specified DGGI officers as Central tax officers and confers upon them powers exercisable by officers of corresponding rank throughout India. Administrative allocation of taxpayers does not exclude intelligence-based enforcement by other tax administration. Investigation arising from intelligence concerning alleged chain of transactions extending across several States is within DGGI jurisdiction. For adjudication of common SCN with noticees in more than one Commissionerate, allocation to Additional/Joint Commissioner of Commissionerate where principal place of business of noticee carrying highest tax demand falls is governed by Notification 02/2022-Central Tax dated 11.03.2022 and Circular 169/01/2022-GST dated 12.03.2022. Where highest tax demand against noticee falls within Delhi Zone, designated Commissionerate is Delhi North. Notification 27/2024-Central Tax dated 25.11.2024 and Circular 239/33/2024-GST dated 04.12.2024 do not alter this allocation - Jurisdictional objection is rejected - Applicability of Circular 171/03/2022-GST to Recovery under Section 74 - Invoices without underlying supplies - Petitioner relied upon serial No. 3 of Circular 171/03/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 contending that where both inward and outward invoices are unsupported by supplies, recovery under Sections 73 or 74 is not required though penal action under Section 122 may follow. Adjudication Order declined to apply Circular on ground that it was issued after SCN - Whether Circular 171/03/2022-GST precludes recovery under Section 74 - HELD - The Circular distinguishes between two situations. Where person avails ITC on invoice unsupported by inward supply but uses that credit for tax on genuine outward supply, serial No. 2 contemplates recovery under Section 74. Where both inward and outward invoices are unsupported by supplies, serial No. 3 states that recovery under Sections 73 or 74 is not required though penal action under Section 122 may follow. The Circular also recognises that actual case may involve mixture of these situations - Whether situation under Circular applies and what consequence follows for demand and penalties depend upon character of inward and outward transactions. These matters fall squarely within scope of appellate examination under Section 107(11) of CGST Act which empowers Appellate Authority after making such further inquiry as may be necessary to confirm, modify or annul decision under appeal. Mere invocation of Circular does not render SCN or adjudication without jurisdiction - All grounds concerning demands, interest and penalties are left open for consideration in appeal. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1068-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Validity of Circular 31/05/2018-GST as amended - Common Adjudicating Authority for composite SCN - Highest Demand Criterion - Petitioners challenged validity of Circular 31/05/2018-GST as amended by Circular 169/01/2022-GST and 239/33/2024-GST which prescribed manner of determining Common Adjudicating Authority in respect of common SCNs issued to multiple noticees by DGGI - Petitioners contended that Circular conferring jurisdiction based on highest demand criterion was ultra vires and violated Article 14, and that assignment of functions can only be by notification under Section 167 not by Circular under Section 168 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether Circular prescribing highest demand criterion as mechanism for selecting Common Adjudicating Authority is valid - HELD - The Circular does not confer or create fresh jurisdiction but merely provides administrative allocation mechanism to select one competent officer from among several already vested with pan-India jurisdiction under Notification 2/2022 issued under Sections 3 and 5(3) of CGST Act - Section 167 is statutory vehicle for conferring jurisdiction by notification while Section 168 is confined to securing uniformity in implementation and cannot override specific mode prescribed under Sections 3, 5(3) and 167. The highest demand criterion is objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable and bears rational nexus with legitimate object of ensuring single consistent adjudication of what is in substance one cause of action arising from one investigation and avoids possibility of conflicting findings by different officers - No impermissible sub-delegation arises as officer issuing composite SCN exercises no discretion in choosing adjudicating authority but merely applies criterion prescribed by Board - Challenge based on Article 14 fails as criterion is not arbitrary. Petitioners have not shown actual prejudice arising from exercise of jurisdiction by Common Adjudicating Authority nor established denial of proper opportunity of hearing or unfair treatment - The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Common Adjudicating Authority and to the vires of the Impugned Circular fails, such jurisdiction being traceable to Notification No. 2/2017-CT and Notification No. 2/2022-CT, validly issued under Sections 3 and 5(3) of the CGST Act - Remaining grounds including merits of demand and evidentiary issues are left to statutory Appellate Authority – The writ petitions are dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-101-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of ITC under inverted tax structure - Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act - Input and output supplies different goods – Respondent-assessee engaged in manufacturing Agarbati procured raw materials including perfumes, fragrances, chemicals and packaging materials at GST rates ranging from 12% to 18% whereas Agarbati manufactured by taxpayer was supplied at 5% GST, resulting in accumulation of ITC – Revenue aggrieved by refund sanction order whereunder inverted duty refund was allowed in favour of the respondent - Whether refund of accumulated ITC claimed on account of inverted tax structure, where rate of tax on inputs was higher than on output supplies, was admissible under Section 54(3)(ii); and whether the CBIC circular's clarification regarding same goods applied – HELD – Section 54(3)(ii) provides that refund of unutilised ITC shall be allowed where credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than rate of tax on output supplies. In the present case, inputs (perfumes, fragrances, chemicals, packaging materials) and output (Agarbati) are commercially distinct and distinguishable goods. Inputs are defined in Section 2(59) as any goods used for or intended to be used in furtherance of business. The taxpayer's inputs fall squarely within this definition - Paragraph 3.2 of CBIC Circular No.135/05/2020-GST (as clarified by Circular No.173/05/2022-GST) applies only to cases where input and output are same goods attracting different rates at different points in time and not to cases where input and output are different goods. Further, CBIC Circulars do not have binding effect on the Tribunal but only persuasive role as they are instructions to departmental officers - The Supreme Court in VKC Footsteps India Private Limited case established that refund was admissible under clause (ii) where unutilized ITC accumulated due to disparity in tax rates between inputs and outputs - The adjudicating authority and first appellate authority had rightly interpreted and applied the law. The order of first appellate authority upholding the refund is sustained and Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-100-GSTAT-ERN | Tribunal SGST

GST - Penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - Detention and seizure of goods in transit - Violation of mandatory seven-day timeline - Order under Section 129(3) confirming the demand of tax and penalty was passed 445 days after the issuance of the notice - Appellant contended that the order passed beyond the mandatory seven-day period prescribed in section 129(3) is void and should be set aside – HELD - Section 129(3) mandatorily requires the proper officer to pass an order for payment of penalty within a period of seven days from the date of service of notice. The use of the word "shall" indicates the mandatory an... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1632-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Provisions for write-off of raw materials, Reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5B) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, Subsequent use and re-availment – Appellant had made provisions for write-off of raw materials in the books of account but had not reversed the CENVAT credit attributable thereto as mandated under Rule 3(5B) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Though the appellant claimed that provisions were proportionately released as materials were consumed and the credit was reversed only on revised provision amount, it failed to substantiate the subsequent consumption of written-off materials with supporting documentary evidence – Whether the appellant was liable to reverse CENVAT credit on provisions made for write-off of raw materials and whether the claim of subsequent use could defeat the statutory requirement of reversal – HELD – Prior to 1st March 2011, Rule 3(5B) applied only to full write-offs of inputs. The rule was amended vide Notification No. 3/2011-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2011, inserting the word "partially" to mandate reversal of CENVAT credit even for partial provisions made after that date. For the period under dispute, creating an accounting provision for raw materials triggered an immediate legal obligation to reverse the corresponding CENVAT credit - The plea that provisions are not equivalent to write-offs because materials remained physically intact and usable is not sustainable as the statute requires acts to be done in the particular manner prescribed. Rule 3(5B) provides that if the provisioned inputs are subsequently used in manufacturing, the credit may be re-availed, but this requires documentary evidence - The appellant's failure to furnish auditors certificate or itemized stores records linking released provisions to actual physical usage defeats the claim of subsequent use. The burden of proof regarding credit admissibility lies on the assessee. The appellant's silence and non-cooperation when requested to provide information amounts to suppression of facts satisfying the criteria for invocation of extended period of limitation. The maxim that no person can take advantage of their own wrong applies - The statutory requirement to reverse credit must be adhered to. The appeal is rejected and the demand confirmed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1061-RAJ | High Court SGST

GST – Validity of Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original in the absence of Digital Signature - Department initiated scrutiny proceedings and issued Recovery notice Section 79 which resulted in petitioner's bank account being attached - Petitioner challenged proceedings asserting that neither the show cause notice nor the Order-in-Original bore any physical or digital signature, making them non est in law - Whether a show cause notice and an Order-in-Original which bear neither a digital signature nor a physical signature can be sustained in law under Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD - Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 is couched in mandatory language employing the word "shall" and admits of no exception. All notices, certificates and orders must be issued electronically through Digital Signature Certificate or E-signature as specified under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or through such other mode as notified by the Board - Issuance and authentication are distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of document on portal satisfies only issuance requirement, not authentication requirement. Digital signature performs function in electronic regime that physical signature performed in paper regime - What the rule requires is authentication of the document, not authentication of the officer's session on a portal. Authentication of document and login by officer are not same - An unsigned document is anonymous and anonymity and quasi-judicial authority cannot coexist. The defect is jurisdictional and not mere irregularity curable under Section 160 of CGST Act. Total absence of signature stands on entirely different footing from display defect in existing signature – The Show cause notice and Order-in-Original are non est in law and are quashed. Recovery notice issued under Section 79 and consequent attachment of petitioner's bank account stand set aside. Liberty is reserved to competent authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law with proper physical or digital signature – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1065-KAR | High Court SGST

GST – Refund of IGST paid on the export of services - Application Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 subsequent its deletion by notification dated 08.10.2024 – Whether the deletion of Rule 96(10) applies retrospectively to refunds claimed for the earlier period and whether the proceedings can be continued under an omitted Rule – HELD – The proceedings under an omitted Rule cannot be continued. Since there was no savings clause or sunset clause in respect of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules when the said Rule was omitted, the Rule could not be kept alive. The omission was intended to bring to an end the unnecessary co... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1064-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Fraudulent Input Tax Credit on goods without corresponding supplies through multiple non-existent suppliers – Imposition of penalty for alleged fraud and wilful suppression of facts – Petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction to challenge the order-in-original before exhausting statutory appeal remedy - HELD – The mere availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly where there is a breach of natural justice or want of jurisdiction. However, such exception should be invoked sparingly and not where the grievance is factual in nature and capable of b... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1631-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Refund of amount deposited during investigation, Interest payable on delayed refund – Investigation was conducted alleging incorrect availment of MODVAT credit. The appellant deposited amount in five instalments during the investigation period before issuance of Show Cause Notice. After initial confirmation of demand, the matter was remanded and after two rounds of litigation, the Tribunal vide Final Order set aside the demand on the ground that the appellant was entitled to MODVAT credit - The refund was granted but without any interest on the ground that the refund was sanctioned within three months ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1633-CESTAT-ALH-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Fake invoices without physical supply of goods, Denial of credit on basis of statements recorded during investigation, Admissibility of statements under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether CENVAT credit can be denied and penalty imposed on basis of statements recorded during investigation which were retracted during cross-examination and when mandatory procedure under Section 9D of CEA was not followed – HELD – Section 9D(1)(b) of CEA prescribes a mandatory and non-derogable procedure for admitting statements recorded during investigation. The person who made the statement must first be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority must form an opinion that having regard to circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice, before cross-examination can occur - The rationale is that statements recorded during investigation have high possibility of being recorded under coercion or compulsion. Multiple High Courts have consistently held this procedure is mandatory and failure to comply means statements cannot be used as evidence - The adjudicating authority in the present case did not provide cross-examination opportunity to all witnesses whose statements were relied upon and admitted retracted statements without properly examining the deponents under Section 9D - The investigation had significant gaps including no physical stock verification, no inquiry from the appellant's customers, contradictory statements from transporters left unresolved. The appellant purchased only from registered dealers, made payments through banking channels, maintained complete records in books of accounts, was subject to regular departmental audit without any prior allegation, and had no knowledge of the improper dealings of the supplier - The adjudicating authority gave no specific findings on the appellant's case but merely reiterated general allegations without countering the defense submissions. Reliance on the fact that some parties opted for SVLDRS cannot constitute evidence against other parties. The impugned order proceeded with conviction that investigation was sacrosanct without properly evaluating the evidence or cross-examination results – The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit along with penalty is set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1630-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Income from trading/sales and renting of immovable property, Taxable service under Section 65B(44) – Appellant received income from trading/sales and renting immovable property as residential dwelling/hostel - Demand of service tax on the gross amount based on Form 26AS from income tax department – Whether income from trading/sales and renting of immovable property for residential use constitutes taxable service and whether extended period was rightly invoked – HELD – Trading or sale is outside the scope of definition of service under Section 65B(44) as it constitutes merely transfer of title in goo... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1629-CESTAT-AHM-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Renting of vehicles fitted with Hydrogen Cylinder Skid on per-trip basis, Applicability of supply of tangible goods service, Classification as Goods Transport Agency – Appellant was engaged in renting vehicles with Hydrogen Cylinder Skid to a recipient and the department issued show cause notices demanding service tax under supply of tangible goods service category on the ground that possession and control were transferred to the recipient – Whether renting of vehicles with Hydrogen Cylinder Skid on per-trip basis is classifiable as supply of tangible goods service – HELD – The activity of renting v... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1062-ALH | High Court VAT

U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - Revisional Power - Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner - Notice under Section 56(2) of UPVAT Act proposing to revise the assessment order - Joint Commissioner revised the order and enhanced taxable turnover creating additional liability - Whether Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, had jurisdiction to exercise revisional power under Section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act in the absence of any authorization from the Commissioner, Commercial Tax and whether proceedings initiated without such authorization are valid - HELD - The record shows that after implementation of U.P. VAT Act, the Commissione... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1070-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Permissibility of clubbing or consolidating multiple financial years in show cause notice issued under Section 74 of CGST Act - Respondent issued SCN covering financial years 2019-20 to 2021-22, alleging suppression of taxable value and short payment of GST - Petitioner challenged notice on ground that clubbing of different financial years/tax periods in single show cause notice is not permissible - Whether authority has jurisdiction to issue consolidated show cause notice covering different financial years/tax periods - HELD - GST scheme is based on annual returns for each financial year with statute fixing five yea... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1069-TEL | High Court SGST

GST - Deposit in Electronic Cash Ledger - Discharge of Tax Liability – Demand of interest under Section 50(1) CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner deposited tax amount in Electronic Cash Ledger on 05.01.2019 well before due date but corresponding liability declared in GSTR-1 return for December 2018 was discharged only upon filing GSTR-3B return for September 2019 on 17.10.2019 - During scrutiny officer issued demand notice under Section 50(1) for interest calculated for 273 days - Petitioner contended that once tax amount was deposited in Electronic Cash Ledger, amount was lying with Government and available for appropriation towards liability and could not be held liable for interest on account of subsequent delay in debiting ledger particularly when delay was attributable to technical glitches on GST portal - Whether deposit of amount in Electronic Cash Ledger prior to due date for filing GSTR-3B return, without corresponding debit towards liability, amounts to discharge of tax liability for purposes of Section 50(1) - HELD - Statutory scheme under Sections 39, 49 and 50 of CGST Act and Rule 87 of CGST Rules contemplates distinction between deposit of amount into Electronic Cash Ledger and its subsequent utilization towards discharge of particular tax liability - Mere credit in Electronic Cash Ledger does not by itself result in appropriation of amount towards particular liability. Debit towards tax liability occurs upon filing return and utilization of amount available in ledger - Electronic Cash Ledger operates as statutory ledger in which amounts are credited and from which amounts are thereafter debited towards discharge of tax liabilities. Mere availability of balance in ledger does not identify or appropriate such amount towards self-assessed tax liability. Tax liability stands discharged only when amount is debited from ledger towards liability upon filing GSTR-3B return and not upon mere deposit in ledger. Therefore intervening period between deposit and debit constitutes period of delayed discharge for which interest is payable under Section 50(1) - Existence of technical difficulties without establishing that they prevented discharge in prescribed manner cannot alter statutory consequence flowing from delayed discharge - Impugned notices do not suffer from illegality or arbitrariness - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1074-BOM | High Court SGST

GST – Classification of licensing of copyright in cinematographic films - Temporary transfer of intellectual property rights in cinematographic films licensed by producer to distributors for commercial exploitation – Tax authorities classified the licensing as Information Technology Software services attracting 18% GST instead of temporary transfer of IP rights in goods other than IT software attracting 12% – Whether licensing of copyright in cinematographic films is classifiable under SAC 998340 (ITSS) at 18% GST or under SAC 997332 (licensing services for right to broadcast and show original films) at 12% GST – HELD - The licensing of copyright in cinematographic films is classifiable under SAC 997332 and attracts 12% GST, and not under IT software classification - Entry 5(c) of Schedule II to CGST Act treats temporary transfer or permitting use or enjoyment of any IPR as supply of service. A cinematographic film is a passive audio-visual work incapable of execution, manipulation or inter-activity as required by the statutory definition of information technology software, which means any representation of instructions, data, sound or image capable of being manipulated or providing interactivity by means of a computer or automatic data processing machine - The scheme of classification of services consciously creates two separate and distinct taxable entries under Heading 9973 namely SAC 997331 for computer software and SAC 997332 specifically for licensing services for right to broadcast and show original films, sound recordings and television programmes. Group 99733 separately lists these two codes demonstrating that cinematographic content licensing cannot be subsumed within software - The impugned orders suffered from manifest and unreasoned errors of law by collapsing two admittedly distinct SACs into one without independent reasoning or explaining the statutory basis. The mode of delivery whether physical hard disks or electronic transmission cannot determine classification, which must turn on essential character of supply - Administrative clarifications by Prasar Bharati and alert Circulars support SAC 997332 for licensing by original copyright holder and expressly distinguish this from distribution of films by distributors to exhibitors classifiable under SAC 999614 at 18% - CBIC circulars dated 11.10.2024 acknowledge the long-standing overlap and ambiguity in classification prior to 01.10.2021 and regularise payment on ‘as is where is’ basis thereby permitting the entire chain of exploitation from producer to distributor to exhibitor to attract uniform treatment. The classification of theatrical rights cannot change when distributor licenses exhibitor - The Revenue reliance on statement of Post-Production Head was erroneous as it was never furnished to the petitioner and spoke only of mode of transmission without technical material or executable program - The impugned orders are quashed. The writ petitions are allowedrnrn^Whether mode of delivery is relevant to classification – HELD - Whether content is transmitted physically or electronically, the mode of delivery cannot determine classification, which must turn on the essential character of the supply. Equating “digital content” with “software”, the core error underlying the impugned orders, has no statutory basis - A ground taken for the first time in the Affidavit-in-Reply by the Respondents contending that the petitioner's services fall within “Online Information Database Access and Retrieval” services whereas, neither the SCN, Orders-in-Original nor Orders-in-Appeal contains any discussion or finding on the contention that the petitioner's services fall within “OIDAR” services. It is settled law that an adjudicating/appellate order cannot be improved upon or supplemented by an affidavit before the writ court; its validity must be tested on the reasoning it actually contains – Further, the respondents’ reliance on the ‘Aspect Theory’ to treat “mode of delivery” as an independent classification criterion is misconceived - The ‘Aspect Theory’ operates in the field of legislative competence, permitting different legislatures to tax different aspects of the same transaction under distinct fields of legislation and has no application to classification on a single supply under a single statute. The dominant nature and essential character of the supply, not its mode of transmission, must govern classification. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1073-GAU | High Court SGST

GST – Failure to pay GST on a bonafide belief, Invocation of Section 74(1) of CGST Act, 2017; conditions precedent for invocation - Disclosure in audited balance sheet, income tax return and GST annual return – DGGI notice under Section 74(1) demanding GST on an allegation that Petitioner, a government contractor engaged in construction of national highways, had failed to pay GST on price adjustments received for the period 2022-23 - Petitioner had executed highway construction works under agreement which contained quoted price including 5% VAT. Price adjustments were made during 2022-23. Petitioner had disclosed the receipt of price adjustments in audited balance sheet filed with Income Tax Authorities and also in annual GST return - Petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice contending that essential pre-conditions for invoking Section 74(1) were not established – HELD - For invoking powers under Section 74(1), the proper officer must come to a clear conclusion that tax has not been paid by reason of fraud or there has been willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade payment of tax. Suppression of facts means non-declaration of facts or information which a taxable person is required to declare in returns or documents furnished - In the present case, the Petitioner had disclosed the receipt of price adjustments in audited balance sheet filed with Income Tax Authorities on 29.09.2023, in annual GST return on 28.12.2023, and had affirmed and declared before GST Authorities per Rule 66 on 12.12.2022. Where facts are known to both parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done and not what he must have done does not render it suppression - Mere failure to pay GST on a bonafide belief that price adjustments were exempt from GST does not amount to willful suppression, especially where neither the government department nor the ministry had included GST charges in the bills for price adjustments. The Revenue invoked Section 74(1) merely to overcome the period of limitation without establishing any of the statutory pre-conditions. This constituted an exercise of jurisdiction not conferred by statute and was arbitrary and unjust – The show cause notice is quashed; all penalties, interest and surcharge are set aside – The writ petition is allowed - Maintainability of writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy under statute – HELD - In the present case, revenue authorities had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 74(1) beyond what was conferred by statute by invoking extended limitation period without satisfying mandatory pre-conditions. This assumption of jurisdiction without authority and arbitrary exercise of power violated Article 14 of Constitution. Such jurisdictional error at threshold stage of show cause notice itself justified interference by writ court even before exhaustion of alternative remedies. When authorities act beyond their jurisdiction, it is permissible for High Court to intervene at initial stage to prevent abuse of authority – The Writ petition held maintainable; show cause notice quashed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1072-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Tariff classification of air and oil filters for automobiles - Chapter 84 vs Chapter 87 - Sole or principal use test - Petitioner, a manufacturer of air and oil filters for supply to automobile companies, classified these goods under Chapter 84 (Heading 8421) - Department claimed classification under Chapter 87/Section XVII (Heading 8708) - Whether the classification should be merely based on the textual entry under Heading 8421 or whether the sole or principal use test applicable to motor vehicle parts under Section XVII was required to be applied – HELD - The petitioner had raised a primary contention that the HS... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1066-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Validity of Corrigendum rectifying Portal Order and Authentication of Unsigned Annexure in GST Adjudication - Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner received Portal Order stating that proceedings under Section 73 stand dropped for reasons stated in Annexure, but the incorporated Annexure recorded rejection of petitioner's explanation and quantified a demand with interest and penalty. Petitioner challenged the validity of subsequent Corrigendum which clarified that relief was granted on three issues while demand on fourth survived, contending that the digitally signed Portal Order recording proceedings as dropped must prevail over the unsigned Annexure and that demand could not be sustained through unsigned Annexure or Corrigendum - Whether an unsigned Annexure expressly incorporated in a digitally signed adjudication order can be enforced and Corrigendum rectifying apparent error in Portal Order under Section 161 is valid - HELD - The digitally signed Portal Order expressly incorporates and adopts the reasons and details stated in the Annexure and discloses an internal contradiction as it records both that proceedings stand dropped and that demand is quantified on fourth issue. The Annexure stood incorporated and adopted as part of the digitally authenticated Portal Order and cannot be treated as an independent unsigned order requiring separate authentication - The composite order when read as a whole shows that the fourth issue was decided against the Petitioner, and the Corrigendum merely corrects this inconsistent portal recital by preserving the relief on three issues and repeating findings and amounts already recorded on fourth issue, neither supplementing reasons for disallowance nor enlarging demand, and therefore falls within Section 161 rectification - The Corrigendum neither withdraws any relief granted by that order nor enlarges the demand. It merely corrects the inconsistent portal statement. The rectification therefore did not adversely alter the Petitioner’s position under the original adjudication so as to attract the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act - Once the Corrigendum is found to be a rectification of the original order, rather than a fresh adjudication, the expiry of the period for completing the original adjudication does not render the subsequent correction invalid - The Corrigendum issued within six-month prescribed period under Section 161 - If so advised, the Petitioner may prefer an appeal against the order, including its Annexure, read with the Corrigendum - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1628-CESTAT-HYD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Eligibility for exemption of Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus - S.No.404 of List 33 — Appellant imported Mono Ethylene Glycol Reclamation Plant under Bills of Entry during 03.01.2023 to 17.06.2024, classifying the same under CTH 84198990 and claiming exemption from payment of Customs duty under S.No.404 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. Original Authority denied exemption on the ground that the goods do not fall within heading 8430 mentioned in column 2 of List 33. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that goods are eligible for exemption - Whether the impugned goods, which are equipment for specialized services meant for offshore and onshore petroleum operations but classifiable under heading 8419 instead of heading 8430, are eligible for exemption in terms of S.No.404 when the Notification extends exemption to goods as described in column 3 of the table read with List 33 and not by reference to column 2 of List 33 – HELD – The plain reading of the notification indicates that exemption is extended to goods specified in column 3 of List 33 when imported by a specified person in relation with petroleum operations - The impugned good qualifies as equipment for specialized services meant for offshore and onshore petroleum operations, which has been certified by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. The goods satisfy all three requirements for eligibility i.e. the description as specified in column 3 of the table read with List 33, falling within Chapter 84 as specified in column 2 of the main table, and the conditions specified in column 6 are satisfied - The headings mentioned in column 2 of List 33 are not exhaustive and do not restrict the scope of the description provided in column 3. Since the impugned goods fall within the description of goods, they are eligible for exemption notwithstanding that they fall under heading 8419 and not 8430 - The amendment in 2024 inserting a specific entry for the impugned goods operates prospectively and does not retrospectively deny the benefit available under S.No.4 during the relevant period prior to the amendment - The notification was intended to provide exemption to goods used for petroleum exploration, production and processing, therefore the entry must be construed as a beneficial exemption and interpreted liberally. No ambiguity exists in the plain reading of the notification, hence the ratio of CC (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company is not applicable - The impugned goods are eligible for exemption from customs duty under S.No.404 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus – The appeal filed by the department is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1084-AP | High Court VAT

Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Taxability of bus hire transactions under Section 4(8) of APVAT Act, 2005 – Petitioner operated buses under hire agreements with State Transport Corporation for specified periods with fixed charges – Whether transactions constitute "deemed sale" liable to tax at stipulated rate – HELD – The terms of hire agreements clearly evidenced that buses were given on hire, not sold. Owner's retention of exclusive physical control and operational responsibility negated any transfer of right to use. Mere permission to use goods during hire period does not amount to transfer of right t... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1063-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Deletion of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules - Applicability to Pending Proceedings - Whether the deletion of sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 through Notification No.20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 would apply to assessees in pending proceedings or only to proceedings initiated after the date of such deletion - HELD – The issue raised is no longer res integra as the Gujarat High Court in the case of Addwrap Packaging Private Limited v. Union of India had held that the omission of sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 through Notification No.20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024 would enure to the benefit of all assessees in pe... [Read more]

2026-VIL-101-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST – Denial from issuance of C-Forms for the purchase of ENA from other States on the ground that the GST regime does not enable issuance of C-Forms – Vide the impugned order the Madras High Court held the indecision of the Council of GST cannot create impediments to the right of trade of the respondent and the assessee is entitled to be issued C-Forms for the purchase of ENA from other States for the period prior to the amendment excluding ENA from GST – Department in appeal – SC HELD - Not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed

2026-VIL-1060-GUJ-CE | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Cotton Waste generated from imported "Raw Cotton" - Manufactured in India – Benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE - Assessee, a 100% EOU undertaking engaged in manufacture of ring spun cotton yarn, imported duty-free raw cotton and procured raw cotton from domestic manufacturers. Cotton waste generated during manufacture of ring spun yarn was used for manufacture of open end cotton yarn which was cleared to DTA – Demand of duty on the ground that assessee had wrongly availed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, alleging that open end yarn was manufactured from imported raw cotton hence not eligible for exemption - Whether cotton waste generated from imported raw cotton while producing ring spun yarn and used in manufacture of open end yarn should be considered as manufactured in India for availing benefit of concessional rate of duty - HELD – The cotton waste is a distinct and separate commercial commodity covered under Chapter heading 5202 of Central Excise Tariff Act and should be considered as a separate manufactured goods. When open end yarn is manufactured from cotton waste which is produced in India, such waste constitutes ‘raw material produced in India’ for purposes of the Notification - The expression 'raw materials' means material used in manufacture of goods; open end yarn is manufactured from cotton waste and not from imported cotton. The condition stipulated in the Notification that goods shall be produced wholly from raw materials produced in India stands satisfied - The Supreme Court in Favourite Industries case held that goods manufactured in EOU is duly considered to be manufactured in India. Since cotton waste was manufactured in the appellant's factory and used for open end yarn manufacture, the Notification condition is satisfied – Further, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as all facts were in knowledge of department at time of issuance of first SCN and no suppression of fact or misdeclaration with intent to evade payment of duty occurred - The impugned order by the Tribunal is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1071-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Permissibility of blocking and negative blocking of electronic credit ledger under Section 79 of CGST Act – Validity of blocking in light of interim order keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance - Petitioner's electronic credit ledger was blocked on 04.02.2025 - Subsequently, petitioner filed writ petition challenging clubbed assessment order and interim stay was granted on 25.02.2026 keeping recovery proceedings in abeyance - Petitioner challenged blocking order on ground that it travels beyond scope of Section 79 and that negative blocking is impermissible under Section 79, particularly when compared with provisions of Rule 86A - Whether blocking order including negative blocking of electronic credit ledger is permissible under Section 79 of CGST Act and whether interim order regarding recovery proceedings impacts the blocking order - HELD - The interim order dated 25.02.2026 which directs that recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance has no impact on blocking order issued earlier as such interim order only restricts amounts lying in electronic credit ledger from being debited for purposes of recovering dues - Blocking of credit ledger, including negative blocking, falls within scope of Section 79 which provides multiple modes of recovery - The width of Section 79(1) demonstrates that proper officer is entitled to recover amounts payable to Government by adopting one or more specified modes - Rule 86A is a provisional measure typically undertaken at pre-determination of liability stage whereas powers under Section 79 are wider measures taken at post-determination stage to recover amounts due and payable to Government - Viewed in context that blocking of credit ledger is a recovery mechanism at post-determination stage, contention that negative blocking of electronic credit ledger is impermissible under Section 79 cannot be countenanced - The blocking order is permissible under Section 79 and survives notwithstanding the interim order regarding recovery proceedings - The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-154-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Appropriate classification and applicable GST rate for aerator gear boxes and spare parts used in aquaculture for prawn rearing - under chapter 8436 as agricultural machinery or under chapter 84834000 - Applicant manufactures and supplies aerator gear boxes and spare parts previously classified under HSN 84834000 attracting GST rate of 18 percent - Following GST 2.0 reforms under Notification 9/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, Applicant proposed reclassification under HSN 84368090 as other agricultural machinery to qualify for concessional GST rate of 5 percent - Whether aerator gear boxes... [Read more]

2026-VIL-157-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Health Insurance – Exemption under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – Applicant-insurance company selected by Government of Kerala to implement MEDISEP Phase-II covering State Government employees, pensioners and eligible family members – Government undertook to pay entire annual premium of Rs. 8,244/- per Beneficiary Family Unit – Whether health insurance services provided to Government of Kerala under MEDISEP Phase-II in respect of identified beneficiaries are covered under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and therefore exempt... [Read more]

2026-VIL-99-GSTAT-ERN | Tribunal SGST

GST - Penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - Detention and seizure of goods in transit as stock transfer - Timeline for passing order - Mandatory compliance with seven-day period - The appellant generated an invoice and e-way bill on 30-7-2020. On 31-7-2020, a vehicle was intercepted at a different location with goods of different variety and value. An order of detention was passed and notice in Form MOV-07 was issued on 4-8-2020 proposing tax and penalty under Section 129(3). However, an order in form MOV-09 imposing penalty was passed on 22-3-2021, which is 230 days after the notice, exceeding the mandatory seven-day period prescribed in Section 129(3) of the Act - Whether the timelines prescribed in Section 129(3) of the CGST Act for issuing notice and passing order are mandatory in nature – HELD - The timelines specified in Section 129(3) are mandatory and not directory. The word "shall" used in the provision indicates the mandatory nature of the timeline. The legislature has prescribed these timelines with the legislative intent of preventing arbitrary detention, prolonged seizure and harassment of traders - Various High Courts have consistently held that failure to adhere to the seven-day timeline vitiates the order of detention and penalty. The provision regulates exercise of coercive statutory power which affects valuable primary rights of the citizen - Even where intervening circumstances exist, the statutory timeline cannot be extended. The order passed beyond the prescribed seven-day period lacks jurisdiction and is illegal – Further there’re is no mens rea on the part of the appellant to evade the tax payment only because e-way bill was not prepared, along with delivery challan for stock transfer. The first appellate authority failed to examine this basic fact which was apparent on the record – The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside, and the respondent is directed to release the bank guarantee to the appellant forthwith – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-155-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Classification of activity of leasing of weekly market by Panchayat to tender contractors for collection of fees - functions of local authority under Article 243G - Applicant, Town Panchayat, leases right to collect fees for weekly market to tender contractors who collect entrance fees from merchants, farmers and public for usage of open space for selling fruits, vegetables, domestic animals and birds on fixed weekly market days - Consideration is determined through tender process and issuance of receipts under seal of Applicant - Whether activity of leasing of weekly market to tender contractors i... [Read more]

2026-VIL-156-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Classification of semen sorting services under appropriate service code - Determination of eligibility for exemption as support services to agriculture under GST - Applicant separates X and Y chromosome bearing cells from bovine semen using proprietary technology and provides services to semen stations managing bull farms - Raw semen is received from semen station, processed using technology, and unpacked processed material returned for further processing and packing into semen straws used for artificial insemination - Whether semen sorting services are classifiable under SAC code 9986 as support s... [Read more]

2026-VIL-153-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Eligibility to input tax credit on land survey charges incurred for the purchase of land used to meet afforestation obligations and directly linked to operation of golf course business - Applicant, a heritage golf club using forest land for golfing facilities, engaged a registered land surveyor to identify forest land utilized for golfing and evaluate suitable alternate land for afforestation purposes as part of compliance with regulatory obligations - The surveyor issued GST invoices for survey charges which were duly paid - Whether input tax credit is admissible on GST paid for land survey charge... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements