More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-130-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Requirement of e-way bill for inter-State movement of goods prior to 01.02.2018 - Revenue appeal against order of appellate order setting aside penalty and proceedings initiated for non-accompaniment of e-way bill with consignment intercepted in transit - First Appellate Authority allowed the first appeal holding that non-production of e-way bill was a bona fide or inadvertent mistake, there being no other allegation of intention to evade tax, and quashed the proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017- Whether generation and carrying of an e-way bill under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was legally mandatory f... [Read more]

2026-VIL-129-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Detention of goods and imposition of penalty for expired e-way bill and mismatch of vehicle registration number under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 68 and Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Appellant contended that non-updation of vehicle details in the e-way bill was a technical and procedural lapse not affecting taxability or resulting in revenue implication - Whether the appellant is liable to penalty under Section 129 for expiry of e-way bill coupled with mismatch of vehicle registration number - HELD - As per Section 68 of the CGST Act, the driver of a conveyance carrying goods exceeding the specif... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1658-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Entitlement to concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty - Prospective or retrospective operation of amending Notification - Appellant, a regular importer of Carbon Less Paper Black Image, claimed the benefit of concessional Basic Customs Duty under a Notification for goods classifiable under certain Customs Tariff Headings - Exemption benefit was denied on the ground that as on the date of filing of the Bills of Entry in dispute, the said Notification stood amended and the goods in question were not covered by the amended Notification - Whether the Appellant is entitled to the concessional benefit under the Notification, and whether the subsequent Notification restoring the benefit is to be interpreted as having retrospective operation - HELD - As on the dates of filing of the Bills of Entry in dispute, the Notification claimed was not in operation, and the Notification then holding the field did not cover the goods in question, nor did the Notification amending it thereafter, indicating that if it were truly an error it would have been rectified in the subsequent amending Notification, which was not done - It is only the later Notification that clearly indicates the goods are eligible for the benefit, and the said Notification has not been given retrospective effect - Unlike the precedents relied upon by the Appellant, where the Government had positively admitted a mistake and issued a corrective Notification, there is no such positive admission of mistake by the Government in the present case, and the decisions relied upon are therefore not applicable - Following the settled principles on interpretation of taxing statutes and on distinguishing a clarificatory or retrospective amendment from a substantive prospective one, the effect of the subsequent Notification restoring the benefit can only be prospective in nature, applicable from the date of its Gazette Notification - The appellant is not entitled to the concessional benefit for the period in dispute - The Appeal is dismissed - Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation to deny the concessional duty benefit claimed by the Appellant - Whether Revenue was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD - As on the date of filing of the Bills of Entry, the Notification under which the benefit was claimed had ceased to exist, and claiming a benefit flowing from a non-existent Notification amounts to claiming a benefit with an ulterior motive, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation - The Appellant cannot plead ignorance of the non-availability of the Notification, since the Appellant is presumed to be aware that the Notification whose benefit was claimed stood amended - No case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1661-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of outbound/international package tour service - Appellant, engaged in providing tour operator services, was demanded service tax on international package tours on the ground of non-payment of tax during audit - Whether service tax is leviable on outbound tours where the service is consumed by the tourist consumer beyond Indian territory - HELD - The service is consumed by the tourist consumer beyond the Indian territory and hence not liable to levy and collection of service tax under the provisions of the Act, the facts of the present case being squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the same issue - The demand on this count is unsustainable - Service Tax - Inclusion of cost of air ticket in value of domestic package tour - Demand was raised treating the cost of air tickets as part of the gross value for the purpose of service tax on domestic package tours - Whether reimbursement of air ticket cost collected from customers can be included in the taxable value and subjected to service tax - HELD - Reimbursement of ticket charges from customers cannot be subjected to service tax, following the decision of the Supreme Court on reimbursable expenses - The demand on this count is unsustainable - Service Tax - Taxability of cancellation charges collected by tour operator - Service tax was demanded on charges collected by the Appellant towards cancellation of bookings - Whether cancellation charges, collected when services are cancelled or withdrawn, amount to consideration for provision of taxable tour operator service - HELD - Booking cancellation charges received by the Appellant are in the nature of compensation and not consideration for service, since levy of service tax can be imposed only when service is actually provided and not on charges collected in the form of damages or penal charges on cancellation or withdrawal of services - No service tax is chargeable on such charges - The demand on this count is unsustainable - Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation for the period 2007-2009, beyond the normal period from the date of filing of ST-3 returns - Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in the absence of any allegation of fraud, suppression or wilful mis-statement with intent to evade payment of tax - HELD - ST-3 returns for the periods 2007-2008 and 2008-09 were filed well before issuance of the show cause notice, and in the absence of any reason to allege fraud, suppression or wilful negligence to pay service tax, the demand for the entire period from 2007-2009 is barred by limitation - The demand invoking extended period is unsustainable [Read less]

2026-VIL-1660-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of duplicate payment of service tax - Assessee inadvertently paid the same financial year's service tax liability a second time during departmental audit - On discovery, assessee filed a refund claim which was rejected by the first adjudicating authority, allowed by the appellate authority in one round, and rejected again in a subsequent round, giving rise to cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue - Revenue contended that the assessee had not disclosed the original payment in the return and had not established that the two payments related to the same liability, relying on accounting discrepancies and the requirement of unjust enrichment - Whether the assessee is entitled to refund of the amount paid a second time for a liability already discharged earlier - HELD - The factual foundation is not in serious controversy, both authorities below having themselves referred to the payment as a duplicate/second payment, and Revenue has not shown the earlier payment was adjusted towards any other liability or that any fresh liability arose for the second payment - The CENVAT reconciliation shows the duplicate portion was not taken as credit, and the omission in the return does not extinguish the legal effect of an actual payment made into the Government account, nor can a wrong accounting head justify denial of refund once the liability has been discharged - On unjust enrichment, the documentary evidence shows the duplicate amount was continuously reflected as recoverable and not written off or passed on, and Revenue has not shown otherwise - Procedural omissions in reporting cannot convert a duplicate payment into tax legally due, and retention of such amount by the Department would amount to retention of tax not legally due - The assessee is entitled to refund of the duplicate payment under Section 11B, and Revenue's appeal challenging the order allowing such refund has no merit and is dismissed - Entitlement to consequential interest on refund of duplicate payment - Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Once refund of the duplicate payment is held admissible, whether the assessee is entitled to consequential interest thereon - HELD - Following settled law that statutory interest follows where refund is not sanctioned within the prescribed period, the claim for interest is allowed under Section 11BB read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - The appellant is entitled to refund along with consequential interest under Section 11BB in accordance with law [Read less]

2026-VIL-1664-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Classification of Greenhouse - Whether classifiable as Plant growth chambers under CTH 8419 or as Prefabricated Buildings/Greenhouse in ready to assemble sets under CTH 9406 - Appellant, manufacturing customised greenhouses, cleared the goods under CTH 8419 8960 availing concessional duty under an exemption Notification - Revenue proposed classification under CTH 9406 0011 and demanded differential duty with interest and penalty, on the ground that fabricated structures were cleared from the factory with only assembly done at site - Whether the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 8419 or under CTH 9406 0011 - HELD - The appellant processes raw materials in the factory and clears the greenhouse in ready to assemble condition, with installation done at site owing to bulky size making transportation in assembled condition difficult - The product is specifically covered under CTH 9406 0011 as greenhouse in ready to assemble sets, to be preferred over the general description under CTH 8419 8960, a heading with the most specific description being preferred to one with a more general description - Following precedent that greenhouses in ready to assemble sets are classifiable under CTH 9406 0011, the appellant's claim for classification under CTH 8419 8960 is not legally correct, and the classification under CTH 9406 0011 held by the lower appellate authority is upheld. However, the appeal is allowed on limitation, and the duty demand, interest and penalty are set aside - Central Excise - Invocation of extended/amended period of limitation for issue of show cause notice - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Show cause notice demanding differential duty for March to December 2014 was issued after the normal one-year period under the then-existing Section 11A(1)(a) had expired, relying on the substituted two-year period introduced by a later amendment - Whether the show cause notice invoking the amended limitation period is time barred - HELD - The demand would have already become time-barred under the one-year period applicable before the amendment enhancing it to two years - A statutory amendment is prospective unless specifically declared retrospective, and cannot revive a demand already time-barred before it came into force - The show cause notice is time barred, as the one-year period to issue it had already expired prior to the amendment - The appeal is allowed on limitation. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1665-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Penalty on co-noticee for alleged involvement in clandestine manufacture and removal of Pan Masala and Scented Jarda Tobacco – Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Penalty was imposed on the appellant as a co-noticee in proceedings initiated against a manufacturer for clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty, on the ground that the appellant was concerned in the affairs of the manufacturing unit – Appellant contended that he had no role in the illegal activities, that his role was limited to extending a loan and assisting in procurement of laminates and miscellaneous goods, that statements of workers did not implicate him, and that invoking Rule 26 for imposing penalty on such basis is not sustainable – Whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and whether such penalty is legally sustainable – HELD – On perusal of the impugned order and the show cause notice, the role attributed to the appellant is limited to having provided laminates and miscellaneous goods and extended a loan facility, and there is a lack of clarity arising from apparent similarity of names between the appellant and another co-noticee – Rule 26 requires that a person acquire possession of, or be concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing excisable goods, or otherwise deal with such goods with knowledge that they are liable to confiscation – No evidence on record shows the appellant was involved in any activity specified under Rule 26, and statements of workers indicate that manufacture and transportation were carried out under the supervision and directions of another person – In the absence of evidence establishing the appellant's involvement in the activities specified under Rule 26, imposition of penalty is not legally sustainable and is contrary to the statements on record – Reliance is placed on judicial precedent holding that penalty under Rule 26 cannot be sustained absent evidence brought on record by the department, and that retracted statements cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for confirming demand and penalty – The impugned order is partly set aside to the extent it imposes penalty on the appellant, without interference with the remaining portions of the order not under challenge – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-134-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Erroneous refund of unutilised input tax credit, Proceeding under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Refund of unutilised input tax credit was sanctioned to the Appellant under Section 54(3) on account of inverted duty structure - Proceedings under Section 73 were subsequently initiated treating the said amount as erroneously refunded upon application of the substituted Rule 89(5) formula - Appellant contending that Section 73(1) separately refers to tax erroneously refunded and to input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, but does not expressly use the words input tax credit erroneously refunded - Whether a monetary refund originating from accumulated input tax credit is capable of being treated as tax erroneously refunded for the purposes of Section 73(1) - HELD - Section 54(3) contemplates a statutory refund of unutilised input tax credit, and when such credit is converted, on the claimant's application, into a monetary payment under Section 54, the transaction is a refund. If the amount so paid exceeds what Section 54 read with Rule 89(5) permits, it is capable of answering the statutory description erroneously refunded - To exclude every Section 54(3) cash refund merely because its source is input tax credit would leave a substantial class of statutory refunds outside the express erroneous refund limb without any language in the Act requiring such exclusion - The absence of the exact phrase input tax credit erroneously refunded cannot nullify the first limb of Section 73 when a monetary refund has in fact been made - The refund is held capable in law of being treated as an erroneous refund under Section 73 notwithstanding that its source was accumulated input tax credit – The appeal is dismissed - Jurisdiction under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 notwithstanding a subsisting refund order - The refund sanction order passed after examination of the refund claim and consideration of the Appellant's reply, and was not challenged by the Department - Appellant contended that the order, having attained finality in absence thereof, could not be collaterally nullified through proceedings under Section 73 - Whether proceedings under Section 73 are without jurisdiction merely because the refund sanction order had not first been reversed through Departmental appeal or revision - HELD - Section 73 is a substantive statutory provision enacted specifically for determination of tax erroneously refunded, and neither Section 107(2), Section 108 nor Section 73 contains language making Section 73 jurisdiction conditional upon prior departmental appeal or revision of the refund order, the provisions operating in related but distinct fields - Departmental appeal or revision tests the legality or propriety of the refund order as an order, whereas Section 73 provides demand and determination machinery for amounts erroneously refunded, subject to its own notice, adjudication and limitation safeguards - An executive instruction prescribing review of refund orders cannot read into Section 73 an additional jurisdictional condition which the legislature has not expressed - Non-invocation of Section 107(2) or Section 108 did not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the proper officer under Section 73 in the facts of the present case - Survival of controversy regarding the principal refund amount computed under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - The refund authority had rejected the larger part of the claim on account of input service and capital goods credit and sanctioned only a residual amount - Department subsequently took the view that upon restricting net input tax credit to eligible input goods credit and applying the complete Rule 89(5) formula, the maximum refund worked out to a negative figure - Appellant having repaid the entire sanctioned amount during pendency of the Section 73 proceedings and quantified only the consequential interest as the amount in dispute in the present appeal - Whether any controversy survives as to the principal refund entitlement under Rule 89(5), having regard to repayment of the sanctioned amount and absence of any competing computation from the Appellant - HELD - The validity of Rule 89(5), confining net input tax credit to input goods credit for the inverted duty refund formula, stands upheld by binding precedent in VKC Footsteps declaring the operation of an existing Rule already effective prior to the refund application and sanction - The computation recorded in the impugned proceedings has not been displaced by any alternative computation from the Appellant - A general prayer for setting aside the impugned order cannot, in the absence of a corresponding challenge to and quantified claim concerning the principal amount, enlarge the subject matter of the appeal into a claim for restitution which has not been made - No subsisting claim for restoration of the principal amount survives, and the controversy is confined to whether the demand of interest is legally and arithmetically sustainable - Levy and computation of interest under Section 50 read with Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 on an erroneous refund - Whether Section 73 read with Section 50 supplies substantive statutory authority to levy interest on an erroneous refund - HELD - Section 73(1), (5), (8) and (9) repeatedly and expressly link the amount erroneously refunded with interest payable under Section 50, forming an integral part of the statutory scheme governing determination and recovery, and liability to interest does not depend upon identifying fault. Section 73 being the provision applicable where the erroneous refund is for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - The substituted Rule 89(5) had already been made operative from a date prior to the refund application and sanction, and its subsequent judicial affirmation did not create a new retrospective liability but declared the operation of an already existing Rule. The later inserted Rule on manner of calculation of interest being incapable of creating or extinguishing a charge already existing in the Act - The dates governing computation being admitted, no specific error in the applicable rate or arithmetic of the interest demand has been established, and Sections 73 and 50, read together, provide statutory authority for interest on an erroneous refund - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-124-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under inverted duty structure - Section 54(3)(ii) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Determination of correct value of turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services and adjusted total turnover for computing admissible refund - Revenue appeal before the Tribunal contending that the FAA wrongly considered outward supplies attracting GST at 5% only for computing adjusted turnover, whereas the respondent-assessee had also issued certain outward supply invoices attracting GST at 18%, resulting in sanction of excess refund - Whether the value of out... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1656-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Suspension of registration of authorised carrier – Non-compliance with detention and demurrage waiver certificate – Regulation 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 and Regulation 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 – Appellant, engaged in international container shipping and Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier operations, was issued a detention and demurrage waiver certificate pursuant to High Court directions, recommending waiver from the date of hold up to delivery of goods – Appellant did not comply with the waiver beyond the maximum permissible sixty days under the proviso to Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR, and was issued an order of immediate suspension of registration under Regulation 11(2)(a) and 11(2)(c) of SCMTR – Appellant contended it is registered only as "Other Notified Carrier" and not as "Authorised Sea Carrier", hence not covered by Regulation 10(1)(l), that there is no risk to revenue and the order is disproportionate, relying on a Supreme Court decision that customs officers cannot overreach contractual terms absent any provision under the Customs Act – Whether the appellant fulfilled its obligations under SCMTR and HCCAR, and whether the suspension order is sustainable – HELD – Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR only bars demanding container detention charges for a maximum of sixty days, beyond which such charges may be demanded – Under Regulation 6(l) of HCCAR, a Customs Cargo Service Provider shall not charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained, and since the goods were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the appellant is debarred from charging such charges – Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers fall under the definition of Customs Cargo Service Provider under HCCAR and must comply with its provisions, and non-compliance with Regulation 6(1) amounts to violation of Regulation 10(1)(m) of SCMTR – The decision relied upon, rendered under Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act, does not deal with HCCAR or SCMTR, issued under distinct statutory provisions, and no guidance can be drawn from it – Since the appellant did not comply with Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, failure to fulfil Regulation 10(1)(m) of SCMTR is attracted, and the suspension order is legally valid and sustainable – The appellant was given an opportunity to submit its representation through a post-decisional hearing, observing natural justice – The impugned order does not require interference – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-119-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Availability of Input Tax Credit for service tax refunded to buyers on cancellation of bookings - Appellant contended that the service tax paid on cancelled bookings is refundable and Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 is only an enabling provision which does not bar self-adjustment through the electronic credit ledger - Department contended refund of previously paid service tax is specifically provided for under sub-section 5 of Section 142 of the Act, and that a taxpayer cannot create its own mechanism for such refund - Whether service tax deposited under the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994 on advance received for bookin... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1663-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Includibility of type test charges in assessable value of goods -Appellant, engaged in manufacture of ACSR Conductors, collected type test charges from a buyer for testing conducted through a third-party agency at the buyer's instance, without including the same in the assessable value for payment of central excise duty - Demand of differential duty, interest and penalty was confirmed on the ground that such charges were paid by the buyer in connection with the sale of goods and hence includible in the transaction value - Whether type test charges received by the appellant from the buyer are includible in the value of goods for charging central excise duty - HELD - Type tests on ACSR Conductors are prescribed under the applicable Indian Standard to verify design, material quality and manufacturing process, ensuring the conductor can safely withstand mechanical, thermal and electrical stress before mass production, and are mandated by the applicable standards to be conducted in certified, accredited laboratories - Such type tests undertaken as per the mandate of the standard are for ensuring safety in transmission of electricity and are thus mandatory tests, and cannot be considered optional testing - The additional amount received towards type test charges is in relation to the sale of goods, as without the requisite certificate/report the sale would not take place, and hence such amount is received in connection with sale of goods and is includible in the value of goods for payment of central excise duty - The plea of revenue neutrality is a presumption, since leviability of excise duty on excisable goods and availment of Cenvat credit are governed by separate provisions and procedural requirements - The demand of differential duty along with interest is confirmed - Quantum of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Equal penalty was imposed on the appellant along with confirmation of duty demand for non-inclusion of type test charges in assessable value - Whether the quantum of penalty imposed requires modification, considering that similar show cause notices for the same issue had been issued to the appellant for earlier periods - HELD - Taking a lenient view of the matter, considering that the issue in respect of the appellant is not a new one, the quantum of penalty is reduced - The duty demand along with interest is confirmed, but the penalty amount is reduced, and with this modification, the impugned order is upheld - The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1100-SIK | High Court SGST

GST - Budgetary Support Scheme - Recovery of alleged excess budgetary support received under the Budgetary Support Scheme - The petitioner was granted budgetary support calculated as a percentage of Central Tax and Integrated Tax paid after utilisation of eligible Input Tax Credit - The Respondents alleged excess budgetary support on the basis that the petitioner had inadvertently disclosed a certain amount in Table 8C of GSTR-9, and confirmed recovery along with interest, adjusting the amount against a refund otherwise payable to the petitioner - HELD - The question requiring consideration was whether the ITC reflected in... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1659-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of imported parts and accessories of motor vehicles - Burden of proof in reclassification - Customs Tariff Item 87089900 vis-a-vis 87082900 - Appellant cleared the goods under a residuary Customs Tariff Item availing concessional duty under an exemption Notification on the strength of certificates of origin whose genuineness was never questioned - Department proposed reclassification of certain articles as parts and accessories of bodies under another Customs Tariff Item and other headings, relying upon technical write-ups furnished by the appellant and material said to be on the appellant's own website - Whether Revenue discharged the burden of establishing the proposed classification - HELD - The burden of establishing a reclassification lies upon Revenue, and classification must proceed under the General Rules of Interpretation read with the Section and Chapter Notes and Explanatory Notes, applying the cumulative conditions for parts and accessories, not by assertion drawn from a website never placed on record - Examination of a small sample cannot be extended to the whole disputed list without a finding matching each article's characteristics against the tariff entry, and a quasi-judicial authority cannot treat non-appearance at investigation or an unrebutted assertion as proof, since that inverts the burden on Revenue - Foreign customs rulings, though only persuasive, cannot be brushed aside without reasons, and absent material or trade evidence to redetermine classification for the first time at the appellate stage, a new case cannot be laid then - Revenue having failed to discharge its burden, the declared classification holds the field, and denial of exemption, being consequential upon the reclassification, collapses with it - The demand of differential duty referable to the reclassification is set aside, and no classification dispute arises for articles where the appellant itself proposed and Revenue accepted a revised classification – The appeal is allowed - Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Effect of a corrigendum introducing fresh articles into a show cause notice - Demand was confirmed invoking the extended period on the ground of knowing misdeclaration with intent to evade duty, and a corrigendum revising the computation and introducing fresh articles across bills of entry not earlier in issue was treated as not affecting limitation so long as the demand on those articles fell within five years of the corrigendum - Whether the extended period was available, and the effect of the corrigendum on limitation - HELD - The extended period is available only where short levy is by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, the foundation for which must be laid in the notice and established on evidence, not by mechanical recital of statutory expressions - The charge being built on material the appellant itself furnished and published, such material cannot be said to have been suppressed - Claim of classification with the description correctly declared is neither misdeclaration nor suppression, particularly where the appellant had itself proposed and voluntarily paid differential duty for certain articles before the notice, conduct antithetical to intent to evade - A corrigendum is a device for correcting a clerical or arithmetical slip and cannot enlarge a notice to a noticee's disadvantage; where it so alters the notice that a fresh case must be met, limitation runs from the corrigendum date, and a demand relatable to articles it introduced for clearances beyond the resulting five-year limit is without jurisdiction - The extended period was not available, and the demand referable to articles introduced by the corrigendum beyond the resulting limit is void, while the demand within the normal period cannot survive either for want of reconciliation and credit for payments already made - Customs - Confiscation and redemption fine - Sections 111(m), 111(o) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and a redemption fine could be imposed - HELD - Confiscation under Section 111(m) requires goods not corresponding in value or other particular with the entry made, and an incorrect choice of tariff item, description and value undisputed, is not a misdeclaration; Section 111(o) is equally inapplicable since the exemption was claimed on certificates of origin never questioned and no condition is shown breached, ineligibility for a notification being a matter of eligibility, not breach of condition - Invoking both clauses without a finding on which particular was false or condition infringed cannot be sustained. Once the foundation for confiscation disappears, a fine in lieu thereof cannot survive - The confiscation and redemption fine are set aside - Customs - Penalty and interest - Sections 114A and 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty equal to the duty determined together with interest was imposed, consequent upon the demand and findings on suppression - Whether the penalty and interest are sustainable - HELD - Penalty under Section 114A is exigible only where duty is short levied by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression and follows the demand, and is not to be imposed for a technical or venial breach or where conduct flows from a bona fide belief - The demand having been set aside and the ingredients for the extended period found wanting, no penalty survives, and interest, being consequential, cannot stand alone - The penalty and interest are set aside, and the impugned order is set aside in its entirety, without prejudice to such course as may lawfully be open to Revenue under the law of limitation and after affording proper opportunity to the appellant - The appeal is allowed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-120-GSTAT-RNC | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit of Compensation Cess accumulated on account of zero-rated supplies - Computation of Net ITC under Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules, 2017 read with paragraph 43(c) of CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST - Respondent filed a refund claim for unutilized Cess credit accumulated on raw materials attracting Compensation Cess while the final product did not attract such Cess - The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund and the First Appellate Authority upheld the sanction - Revenue appealed contending that any ITC reversed in the return during the refund period, irrespective of the period to which it related, must be deducted from Net ITC - Whether the adjudicating authority was justified in sanctioning the refund of unutilized ITC of Cess under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, where the ITC in question was reversed during the relevant period but related to an earlier period - HELD - The statutory test under Rule 89(4)(B) for determining Net ITC is whether the credit was actually availed during the relevant refund period, and not merely whether an amount was debited or credited in the electronic credit ledger during that period - The reversal in question pertained to an earlier tax period and was made only after the refund of the proportionate eligible ITC had already been sanctioned, and could not therefore reduce the Net ITC for the refund period under consideration, particularly since the total ITC of Cess availed during the relevant period was itself less than the reversed amount - Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the departmental authorities but cannot override or add words to a statutory rule, and cannot bind the courts or curtail substantive rights where they run contrary to the statute - Paragraph 43(c) of the Circular cannot be read as laying down that every reversal made during the refund period must be treated as a reduction of ITC availed during that period, irrespective of the period to which the underlying credit relates, since Rule 89(4) refers specifically to ITC availed during the relevant period and does not equate reversal with non-availment for all purposes - Where entitlement to refund is not disputed and the conditions of Section 54(3) of the Act and Rule 89(4) of the Rules are satisfied, a clarification in a circular cannot prevail over the statutory prescription - The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1654-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification - Goods imported declared as Scrap Metal/Heavy Melting Scrap, were found on examination and testing to be assorted in size, extensively rusted, edge-damaged, cut and severely defective, and were held by the Adjudicating Authority to be used rails/railway sleepers/G.I. angles classifiable under Headings 7302 and 7301, denying the benefit of the concessional exemption Notification - Whether used rails, railway sleepers and G.I. angles imported and declared as Heavy Melting Scrap/re-rollable scrap under Chapter Heading 7204 were correctly reclassified under Headings 7302 and 7301 as railway/tramway track construction material - HELD - An article originally manufactured as a railway rail does not, merely by reason of its identity or residual physical form, invariably fall under Heading 7302; the mere description of goods as scrap by the importer also cannot determine classification - The relevant consideration is the condition and character of the goods as imported and whether they continued to be usable as railway/track material or had ceased to be so and constituted waste or scrap within the meaning of Section Note 8(a) to Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The unrebutted expert opinion of the National Metallurgical Laboratory establishing that the material was unfit for re-use and suitable only for melting/re-rolling directly establishes lack of usability, and such material answers the description of waste and scrap under Section Note 8(a) to Section XV, being appropriately classifiable under Heading 7204 - Railway sleepers identifiable and usable as such remain classifiable under Heading 7302 by specific tariff description, but where the material had become unusable and was imported only as scrap, its classification is to be determined with reference to the statutory provisions governing waste and scrap - Department cannot classify goods under Heading 7302 merely from their original identity without establishing condition and usability at the time of import - The same reasoning applies with greater force to G.I. Angles, ordinarily covered by Heading 7216 and not brought under Heading 7302 merely because found in a consignment declared as HMS - The classification as declared by the appellant is accordingly sustained for the goods available for examination, and for goods covered by the Bills of Entry relating to past clearances, not available for inspection, the classification as declared is to be accepted – The appeal is disposed of - Rejection of declared values and their re-determination - The adjudicating authority has rejected the declared values under Rule 12 of the CVR 2007 and has thereafter determined enhanced values – HELD - The present order does not sufficiently disclose the precise manner in which the enhanced figures were arrived at. In particular, where the value is sought to be determined under the residual mechanism, the order must demonstrate why the preceding methods could not be applied and what contemporaneous or other reliable data constitutes the basis of the substituted value - On the issue of valuation, the matter is remanded for fresh determination. In case the value suggested by the department is contested by the importer, the Original Authority shall first record its reasons for rejecting the declared transaction value and shall thereafter determine the value strictly in accordance with the sequential scheme of the 2007 Rules - Levy of Redemption fine - Whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on goods held liable to confiscation but which had already been cleared and were not physically available - In respect of goods covered by 17 Bills of Entry relating to past clearances, held liable to confiscation, the Adjudicating Authority did not impose any redemption fine on the ground that the goods had already been cleared and were not physically available - Whether this finding, declining to impose redemption fine on unavailable goods, calls for interference - HELD - Redemption under Section 125 presupposes the availability of the goods for redemption, particularly where the goods have been finally cleared and were not released against a bond, this position being distinguishable from cases where goods were released against a bond or undertaking - Since the Adjudicating Authority itself recorded that the consignments were already cleared and physically unavailable, no redemption fine could be imposed, and that part of the order does not call for interference. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1650-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of amounts accounted under the head "Bank Charges" by a non-banking financial company engaged in factoring services, exemption under Notification No.29/2004-ST - Appellant claimed exemption in respect of discounting/bank charges representing interest on cheque discounting, separately accounted for and reflected in monthly statements furnished to clients - Adjudicating authority accepted discounting charges as exempt under the notification but confirmed service tax on a residual amount shown under the head Bank Charges, describing the same as cheque issuing charges and other expenses recovered from clients as reimbursable charges - Whether the confirmed Bank Charges are taxable receipts - HELD - Notification No.29/2004-ST exempts, in relation to discounting of bills, bills of exchange or cheques, the value equivalent to interest on such discount, subject to separate disclosure - An earlier order for a prior period, after examining the appellant's records, had accepted that such charges represented interest on cheque discounting, separately accounted for, and there was no material showing any change in the nature or accounting of the receipts during the period in question - Mere classification of an amount under the internal ledger head Bank Charges cannot by itself establish taxability. Revenue has not undertaken a transaction-wise examination to establish that the amount represented consideration for a taxable service rendered by the appellant - To the extent the amounts represent interest or discount, they are covered by the exemption notification, and to the extent they represent actual bank expenses reimbursed by clients, they cannot be treated as consideration for a taxable service for the relevant period, following the principle that reimbursable expenses are excluded from taxable value - Revenue failed to establish the taxable character of the confirmed Bank Charges - The demand held unsustainable on merits - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST – Transportation of goods on longer route to avoid difficult terrain - Diversion of route, intention to evade tax under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Vehicle was intercepted for deviating from shorter route of about 70 km to longer route covering about 200 km excess. Proper Officer issued notice alleging discrepancies and intrusion into geographical area of State without necessity and concluded that appellant intended to deliver goods to unintended recipient in State to evade tax - Whether adoption of longer route instead of shorter route for transportation of goods with valid documents, due to difficult terrai... [Read more]

2026-VIL-111-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

GST – Demand for tax under Section 74 for alleged suppression of outward supplies – Revenue conducted search and inspection at registered office of taxpayer - Adjudicating authority issued demand order in Form GST-DRC-07 determining tax liability for suppression of outward supply without serving any statutory show cause notice on taxpayer – Whether proceedings for recovery of tax under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017 can be sustained when no statutory show cause notice has been issued to taxpayer – HELD - Section 74(1) of CGST Act mandates that proper officer shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax, which... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1657-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Utilization of scrips/export earnings of a 'group company' for discharge of export obligation under EPCG/SFIS/SHIS schemes – Paragraph 9.28 of the Foreign Trade Policy – Appellant importer, engaged in development of infrastructure projects, had used EPCG licences and SFIS/SHIS duty credit scrips issued to its group company for import of capital goods, discharging export obligation by utilising the group company's export earnings, including earnings from port handling services rendered to foreign vessels calling for import cargo – Demand of differential customs duty was raised on the ground that the two companies did not qualify as 'group companies' since neither held shareholding in the other, that shareholding of common individual directors was not relevant, and that earnings from services to import vessels could not be adjusted towards export obligation – Appellant contended that the two companies, both incorporated companies with common directors combinedly holding the requisite shareholding, satisfy the definition of 'group company', and that the competent authority's clarification to that effect is final and binding on the Customs Authorities – Whether the appellant and its group company qualify as 'group companies', and whether the group company's earnings from services to import vessels could be adjusted towards the appellant's export obligation – HELD – The definition of 'group company' requires two or more enterprises exercising the requisite voting rights or power to appoint the requisite proportion of directors in each other, and where both entities are companies with common directors combinedly holding the requisite shareholding in each, the twin criteria are satisfied, individuals having represented as directors and not in their individual capacity – The competent authority's clarification that the companies are group companies is final and binding on the Customs Authorities, whose role is limited once such clarification is issued – Following the settled position, upheld up to the Supreme Court, that companies with common controlling shareholding through their promoters qualify as group companies, the issue is no longer res integra – Earnings from port handling services to foreign vessels, being earned in foreign exchange or its equivalent, constitute export of service eligible for adjustment towards export obligation, and once the group company relationship is established, such earnings can be utilised to discharge export obligation – The orders dropping the demand on this ground do not require interference - Customs – Eligibility of parts of helicopter for exemption as 'capital goods' under SFIS/SHIS scheme – Notification No. 91/2009-Customs – Demand of differential duty was confirmed on import of helicopter parts on the ground that the helicopter was used for private purposes and could not be treated as capital goods related to the appellant's service sector business – Appellant contended that the helicopter was essential for transporting personnel to remote project sites for monitoring infrastructure projects, that its use was for private purpose in the civil aviation sense and not personal use of an individual, and that such use qualifies it as capital goods – Whether helicopter parts qualify as capital goods eligible for the exemption – HELD – Capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy covers plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required, directly or indirectly, for rendering services, and the impugned goods, being parts for functioning of a helicopter used to transport personnel connected with infrastructure projects in remote areas, fall within that definition – Permission for operating the aircraft for 'private use' relates to the regulatory category under Civil Aviation Requirements and does not mean personal use of an individual, since a non-scheduled operator may operate flights for a company within its group and associated companies and its own employees and their family members – Use of helicopter parts for the appellant's infrastructure projects is capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, and use of the group company's scrips for the exemption is well within the Policy – The confirmation of duty demand on this count is not legally sustainable - Customs – Invocation of extended period of limitation – Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 – Demand on import of helicopter parts for part of the disputed period was raised beyond the normal period by invoking the extended period, alleging suppression and wilful mis-statement – Whether the extended period was invokable – HELD – Suppression requires a deliberate act to withhold correct information with intent to escape duty, and where facts are known to both parties, omission by one to do what it might have done does not amount to suppression – The appellant had itself referred the issue to the competent authority, obtained the necessary clarification, and furnished it to the department, besides obtaining requisite permits for import, use and operation of the helicopter – No case is made out for invoking the extended period, and the demand beyond the normal period does not stand legal scrutiny on this count also [Read less]

2026-VIL-1639-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of reimbursement of proportionate common expenses - Scope of consideration under Section 67 Finance Act - Appellant clinic provided premises space to charitable eye hospital and recovered proportionate share of electricity charges, water charges, municipal taxes and maintenance charges, without charging any rent as per Memorandum - During audit objection was raised that reimbursements should be included in taxable value under Section 67 read with Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Show Cause Notice was issued proposing demand for recovery of Service Tax with interest and penalty on allegation that arrangement constituted renting of immovable property - Whether reimbursement of common expenses can be treated as consideration for taxable service - HELD - Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules went beyond the mandate of Section 67 (unamended) and was ultra vires. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., held that in valuation of taxable service, the value shall be the gross amount charged for such service and valuation cannot be anything more or less than the consideration paid as quid pro quo for rendering such service. Section 67, as it stood prior to 14.05.2015, did not include reimbursable expenditure or cost within the scope of consideration - The amendment made by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 14.05.2015 including reimbursable expenditure in definition of consideration was a substantive change and therefore prospective in operation. Since disputed period was October 2010 to March 2015, for period prior to 14.05.2015, reimbursements cannot be added to value of consideration - The appellant acted on bona fide belief founded upon rational interpretation that reimbursement of proportionate common expenses did not constitute taxable consideration, and the Revenue had not made case of suppression with intent to evade Service Tax - The confirmed demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1641-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Classification of Disposable Micro-cuvettes as Parts of Analytical Instrument – Appellant imported “STA Satellite Cuvettes”, sealed cartridge assemblies consisting of plastic body with small steel ball enclosed, designed exclusively for use with STAGO blood coagulation analysers - Appellant classified goods as spare parts under CTI 9027 9090. Customs Dept objected to this classification, contending that because the cuvettes are single-use disposable consumables, they must be classified as general plastic articles under CTI 3926 9099, which attract higher duty rates – Whether micro-cuvettes constitute identifiable parts or accessories of the STAGO coagulation analyser classifiable under Heading 9027 by virtue of Chapter 90 Note 2(b), or whether they are merely disposable consumable articles of plastic classifiable under residuary Heading 3926 – HELD – The micro-cuvettes are identifiable and functionally integrated parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the STAGO coagulation analyser and are classifiable under CTI 9027 9090. The designation as single-use disposable does not by itself render an article a consumable or exclude it from being a part or accessory. A critical distinction exists between a disposable article (describing intended life or use-cycle) and a consumable article (describing one that is used up or loses identity in operation) - Where an article is specifically designed for, functionally integrated with, and necessary to the operation of a machine, it qualifies as a part or accessory irrespective of its single-use character. The micro-cuvettes participate actively in the coagulation analysis process; the plasma sample is contained within and the steel ball enclosed therein is subjected to magnetic control by the analyser to detect coagulation time. Chapter 90 Note 2(b) requires classification of parts and accessories, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular machine, with that machine, without requiring permanent installation or incorporation - The article must be considered in its entirety as a specially designed cartridge with integrated steel ball intended for the particular analytical system. A specific tariff heading prevails over a general or residuary heading; material of construction by itself does not determine classification where the article has acquired a specific identity and function as a component of an analytical instrument - The micro-cuvettes are classifiable under CTI 9027 9090. Differential duty demand and interest are set aside. Penalty, confiscation and redemption fine do not arise - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1642-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Classification of Silver-based Electrical Contacts as Parts of Electrical Apparatus, Waiver of show cause notice and personal hearing at adjudication stage – Appellant imports Rivet Mobile Contact, sealed cartridge assemblies with silver composition of 99.116 per cent. Goods were self-assessed and declared under CTI 85389000. During examination, jewellery expert opined on silver content, leading to reclassification under CTI 71141120 as precious metal articles. Appellant sought expedited adjudication without show cause notice or personal hearing - In subsequent imports, appellant self-assessed under alternative tariff codes then appealed seeking classification under CTH 8538 – Whether appeals against self-assessed bills of entry without departmental reassessment are maintainable, and whether goods should be classified as precious metal articles or as electrical contacts – HELD – Appeals are maintainable and waiver of procedural safeguards does not extinguish statutory right to appeal under Section 128 - A self-assessed bill of entry is an order of assessment appealable under the Act; absence of departmental reassessment does not render appeal non-maintainable - Waiver of SCN and personal hearing at adjudication stage operates at different stage from appeal and serves different purpose; such waiver cannot without more be read as implied surrender of right to appeal - Further, Board's Circular directs that SCN must not be waived where legal questions of serious nature are involved, and classification disputes involving technical composition and Chapter Notes fall within such cases - Rivet Mobile Contact is classifiable as electrical contact under Heading 8538, not as precious metal article. Where Revenue seeks to classify goods under heading different from that claimed by assessee, burden rests on Revenue to establish that departure. Revenue's sole material is opinion of jewellery expert regarding silver content, which goes no further than composition and does not address legal question whether goods stand excluded from Chapter 71 by Chapter Note 3(k) and Explanatory Note (d) to Heading 71.15 which exclude electrical contacts - Opinion of technical expert is confined to compositional analysis and cannot determine tariff classification, which is matter for proper officer and appellate authorities - Goods are manufactured to customer's specific drawing, not of standard type usable for other purposes, and are assembled into Moving Contact as part of connectors, switches and relays—uncontroverted evidence of dedicated design and end use. Classification of composite article follows component that gives it essential character and not ingredient that predominates in quantity. Silver serves as electrically conductive material of contact; it does not detract from but subserves the essential character of the Rivet Mobile Contact. Metal contacts designed for switching, protecting circuits or making connections are classifiable under Heading 8538 as parts notwithstanding their precious metal content - Rivet Mobile Contact classifiable under CTH 8538. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty premised on earlier classification cannot survive – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1651-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Includability of mould modification service charges in assessable value of bumpers under Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Appellant procured moulds from third party manufacturers, availed Cenvat Credit thereon and sold them to the buyer on payment of VAT while retaining the moulds in its factory for manufacture of bumpers and amortising their cost in the sale price of bumpers on which excise duty was discharged. Separately, on the buyer's instructions, the appellant carried out modifications to the moulds and collected service charges, discharging service tax on the same - Department alleged that the service charges towards mould modification were required to be included in the amortised cost of the moulds for arriving at the transaction value of the bumpers - Whether the service charges collected by the appellant from the buyer for carrying out modifications to the moulds are required to be included in the amortised cost of the moulds for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value of the bumpers under Rule 6 of the CEVR, 2000 - HELD - The modification charges are not additional consideration for the sale of bumpers but consideration for a distinct and independent service rendered by the appellant, on which service tax was discharged; for a payment to qualify as additional consideration under Rule 6, there must be a nexus between the consideration and the transaction value of the goods under clearance, and no such nexus was established by the department - Explanation 1 to Rule 6 deals with the value of tools, dies, moulds and similar items provided by the buyer free of cost or at reduced cost to the manufacturer; in the present case the moulds were purchased by the appellant and sold to the buyer on payment of VAT, and are not supplied free of cost, so the Explanation does not extend to service charges for modification or repair work on moulds whose cost has already been amortised - Reliance placed on Circular No. 170/4/96-CX, which addresses amortisation of the cost of patterns in the assessable value of castings, is misplaced as it does not address service charges for modification of moulds on which service tax has been discharged - The appellant's practice accords with Accounting Standard 10 - The service charges collected for mould modification are not includable in the assessable value of the bumpers under Rule 6, being consideration for a service and not additional consideration for the bumpers - Demand on this count is not sustainable on merits and set aside – The appeal is allowed - Limitation - Invocation of extended period under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposability of penalty under Section 11AC - Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was rightly invoked, and whether penalty under Section 11AC is imposable - HELD - Misstatement or suppression of fact must be wilful, that is, with intent to evade duty, and mere non-payment of duty does not amount to suppression; the burden of establishing the ingredients attracting the extended period lies on the Revenue - The department had conducted an audit of the appellant's records in 2014 and the show cause notice arose from that very audit; the appellant had been filing its returns regularly, paying service tax on the mould modification charges, and amortising the cost of moulds, so every material fact alleged to have been suppressed was already within the knowledge of the department or readily ascertainable from its records - Where the department has conducted an audit and was fully aware of the assessee's activities, it cannot be said that there was any misstatement or fraud, and the extended period is not invokable – Further, the issue is genuinely one of interpretation - The finding of suppression is not supported by any positive or deliberate act of concealment - Since the entire demand falls beyond the normal period, if the extended period is not invokable, the entire demand falls. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1652-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Exemption to Dual Fuel Burner System supplied for a biomass gasification project as non-conventional energy device/system under Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Appellant cleared Dual Fuel Burner Systems and allied equipment to a project integrator without payment of duty claiming exemption under the said notification - Department viewed the goods as mere parts and accessories not covered by the notification - Whether the impugned goods cleared are eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 332 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE as non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in List 8 - HELD - The purchase order specifically described the supply as a Dual Fuel Burner System comprising numerous integrated components constituting a complete system and not isolated spare parts supplied independently, specially designed to utilise bio-gas generated by a biomass gasification plant and convert the same into usable heat energy - Where components are supplied together as an integrated system designed for a specific non-conventional energy application, the exemption cannot be denied by artificially disaggregating the system into individual parts. The goods should not be examined item by item and classified merely as valves, blowers, burners or regulators, as such an approach ignores commercial reality and the manner in which the goods were conceived, manufactured, supplied and installed - The amendment inserting Sl. No. 332A with effect from 11.07.2014, extending exemption to specified parts, is irrelevant once it is found that the goods supplied constituted a complete burner system and not mere parts - The documentary evidence established that the items formed constituent elements of a single integrated system intended to convert bio-gas into usable thermal energy - The functional role performed by the system within the biomass gasification project, and not the fact that the system comprises multiple components, is the determinative factor for eligibility to exemption - The impugned goods satisfy the description of a non-conventional energy device specified in List 8 and are entitled to exemption - Denial of exemption is unsustainable and set side – The appeal is allowed - Limitation - Invocation of extended - Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty is sustainable on the ground of limitation - HELD - The clearances covered under the relevant invoices were initially omitted from the ER-1 return, but the appellant, by letter addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent shortly thereafter and well before initiation of any investigation, voluntarily brought this omission to the notice and requested inclusion of the clearances as exempted clearances under the notification - Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with any allegation of suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty - The dispute essentially concerns the interpretation and applicability of the exemption notification to the goods in question - The extended period cannot be invoked merely on account of non-payment of duty or a dispute regarding interpretation of law in the absence of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand is barred by limitation. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1655-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Excisability and marketability - Dutiability of printing and stationery items such as registers, account books, receipt books, forms, order books, letter pads, memorandum pads and similar articles printed with logo and inscriptions of Western Railway - Whether the appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty on such articles of stationery for the disputed period - HELD - The issue for earlier periods has already been decided in favour of the appellant and similarly situated railway printing presses by coordinate benches of the Tribunal. It was held that goods not proved by the department as capable of be... [Read more]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST - Exemption on recovery of write-off amount of a housing loan account under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Show cause notice under Section 73(1) proposing demand on an amount treated as taxable supply - Appellant contended before the Tribunal for the first time that the disputed amount represented recovery of a written-off housing loan, constituting an exempt/non-GST transaction being a transaction in money relating to a loan, and therefore not exigible to GST - Respondent objected that the plea based on the Notification was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and was an afterthought, and that the claim was unsubstantiated - Whether recovery of write-off amount of a housing loan account is exempt from levy of GST under Notification No. 12/2017 - HELD - A notification issued under statutory power, such as Section 11 of the GST Act, is legislative in nature and has the force of law. A pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, the objection to raising the plea for the first time before the Tribunal is not tenable - Entry No. 27 of Notification No. 12/2017 exempts services by way of extending deposits, loans and advances in so far as the consideration is represented by way of interest or discount, and therefore covers the transaction relating to recovery of a loan amount - Recovery of write-off amount of a housing loan account held exempt from levy of GST under Notification No. 12/2017, subject to the Appellant establishing by cogent and reliable documentary evidence that the amount pertains to a written-off loan account recovered during the relevant period - Question of law answered in favour of the appellant - Non-consideration of documentary evidence regarding write-off of housing loan account by the Appellate Authority - Power of Appellate Tribunal to direct production of documents under Rule 112(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Appellant contended that documents evidencing recovery of a written-off housing loan account were placed on record but not considered by the Appellate Authority - Whether the matter requires remand for consideration of such documentary evidence - HELD - The document evidencing deposit in the written-off loan account, being a record of a recognised bank, is admissible as prima facie evidence under Section 4 of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 upon production of a certified copy, without requirement of further formal proof. The Appellate Authority failed to consider such document as per law - The Appellate Authority or Tribunal retains the power under Rule 112(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 to direct production of any document notwithstanding anything contained in the rule, to enable disposal of the appeal - For a just decision of the litigation, the matter requires remand for production and consideration of the relevant document and the record of the written-off housing loan account - Order-in-Appeal set aside and appeal remanded to the Appellate Authority with direction to the Appellant to produce the certified copy of the relevant document and the record of the written-off housing loan account, for consideration and decision according to law. [Read less]

2026-VIL-115-GSTAT-CHD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Admission of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal - Discretion under Section 112(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 to refuse admission where amount involved does not exceed Fifty Thousand Rupees - Appellant, Managing Director of a company, appealed against an order-in-appeal upholding penalty of an aggregate amount imposed on him under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 in his capacity as Managing Director, the amount of penalty determined against the Appellant not exceeding fifty thousand rupees - Whether the appeal is liable to be admitted, having regard to the quantum of penalty determined against the Appellant - HELD - ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-117-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Exemption on interest income under Entry No. 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - Assessing Officer, on scrutiny of returns and finding discrepancy in reconciliation of turnover disclosed in the annual return, issued show cause notice and confirmed a demand of tax, interest and penalty on turnover including amounts claimed by the Appellant as exempted interest income, which order was upheld in first appeal - Appellant contended that the disputed amount represented interest income exempt under the Notification and pressed only the amount relating to interest at the appellate stage - Whether the interest income claimed by the Appellant is exempt from payment of tax under Notification No. 12/2017 - HELD - Entry No. 27 of Notification No. 12/2017 exempts services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances in so far as the consideration is represented by way of interest or discount, other than interest involved in credit card services - The amount of recovery of any interest is accordingly exempted under the said entry – This question of law answered in favour of the Appellant - Burden of proof to establish entitlement to exemption on interest income under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Appellant claimed that turnover in dispute represented interest income relating to another State erroneously disclosed as turnover of the State in question in the returns, comprising adjustments described as “claw-back interest,” “EIS interest,” “interest reversal,” and “NACL cheque bounce cases” - Despite being called upon by notice to furnish documentary evidence and having submitted a reply along with a Chartered Accountant's certificate, the Appellant did not produce borrower-wise or State-wise documentary evidence substantiating the claim - Whether the transactions in question pertain to income from interest so as to qualify for the exemption under the Notification - HELD - To claim the benefit of the exemption, the Appellant is required to establish by cogent and relevant documentary evidence that the amount in question pertains to interest income relating to another State erroneously disclosed as turnover of the State in question for the relevant financial year - A consolidated audit report or a Chartered Accountant's certificate that does not disclose findings or the documentary basis of examination is insufficient to establish such a claim - Evidence which could have been produced before the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal but was not produced permits an adverse inference that such evidence, if produced, would be unfavourable to the party withholding it - Even assuming the procedural safeguards alleged to be violated had been complied with, the outcome would not have been different in the absence of documentary proof - this appeal is not acceptable hence the appeal is rejected. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1649-CESTAT-MUM-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of incentives, discounts and reimbursements received by an authorized vehicle dealer from car manufacturers under Sections 65B(44), 66E(e), 66B and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant, an authorized dealer purchasing and selling vehicles on a principal-to-principal basis, received incentives, bonus and discounts from car manufacturers for achieving sales targets of vehicles and spare parts and for passing on discounts to customers - Whether the appellant is required to pay service tax on such incentives, discounts and reimbursement amounts - HELD - A declared service under Section 66E(e) requir... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1648-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Applicability of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to clearance of organic manure emerging as by-product in manufacture of sugar and molasses - Appellant crushed sugarcane resulting in sugar juice, molasses, bagasse and press mud, with press mud and spent wash generated during purification mixed and left to result in organic manure, cleared without payment of duty on the basis that it is a waste product - As separate accounts of common inputs and input services towards dutiable and exempted final products were not maintained, department alleged the appellant was required to reverse CENVAT credit attribut... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1647-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on inputs exclusively used in Research and Development operations - Appellant, engaged in manufacture of motor vehicles and parts, IC engines and parts, availed CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on inputs and service tax paid on input services - As goods manufactured in the R&D Centre of the appellant are not subject to levy of central excise duty, department alleged that CENVAT credit availed on inputs exclusively used in the R&D department was improper and initiated proceedings for recovery of such credit, which came to be confirmed along with interest and penal... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1646-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Includibility of royalty payments in assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Appellant-EOU engaged in manufacture of power conversion and inverter systems, imported components from related foreign suppliers and paid royalty at 2% on net selling price of finished products manufactured and sold in India - Department held such royalty includible in assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) on the ground that imported components constituted integral raw materials for manufacture of the branded finished products - Whether royalty paid by the appellant is includible in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10, and whether the impugned orders confirming such inclusion are legally sustainable - HELD - Rule 10(1)(c) requires two cumulative conditions, namely that the royalty be related to the imported goods and that its payment constitute a condition of sale of the imported goods, the burden of establishing both lying on Revenue. Neither Rule 10(1)(e) nor its Explanation creates an independent charging mechanism or enlarges the scope of clause (c) - None of the agreements stipulated that import of raw materials was conditional upon payment of royalty, nor was royalty computation linked to value or quantity of imported components, the obligation arising only upon manufacture and sale of finished products - Royalty paid for technical know-how, intellectual property rights, trademarks and post-import commercial exploitation cannot automatically be loaded into assessable value merely because imported components are used in manufacture, following the settled position that the relevant test is whether import would have taken place had the importer declined to pay royalty - Mere existence of some nexus between imported raw materials and royalty payment is insufficient absent proof that royalty was a condition of sale. De novo adjudication proceeded on inferential reasoning without any fresh material establishing the statutory requirements, and the impugned appellate order adopted the same reasoning without independent examination. Additions to transaction value being exceptions to acceptance of declared value cannot be sustained on generalized assumptions of relationship between parties - Royalty payments held not includible in assessable value - Impugned order set aside and appeal allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1644-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Concessional duty on import of parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators subject to condition that importer shall use goods for specified purpose - Respondent imported parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators availing concessional duty benefit under the said notifications, and simultaneously executed separate supply agreements and erection and commissioning agreements with project developers, transferring the imported goods to customers prior to erection and commissioning at project site - Department alleged that such transfer of ownership before installation violated Condition Nos. 35 and 45 of the exemption notifications - Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings holding that the imported goods were used for manufacture and installation of the generators and that the notifications did not prohibit transfer of goods prior to erection or assembly - Whether transfer of imported goods to customers under supply agreements prior to erection and commissioning results in violation of the condition that the importer shall use the goods for the specified purpose - HELD - The expression "he shall use them for specified purpose" cannot be interpreted to require continuous ownership of the imported goods till final commissioning - The notifications are incentive notifications intended to promote renewable energy generation, and the substantive requirement is that the goods must ultimately be used for the specified purpose of manufacture or maintenance of Wind Operated Electricity Generators, with nothing therein prohibiting movement of goods to the project site or transfer under a turnkey contractual arrangement - The imported goods were admittedly used exclusively for erection and commissioning of the generators, with the importer retaining technical responsibility for fabrication, erection and commissioning, and there was no allegation of diversion or alternative end use - The identical issue stands settled by the jurisdictional High Court, which held that mere sale or transfer of possession of imported goods prior to assembly does not amount to violation of the condition requiring use for specified purpose where the importer retains contractual responsibility for erection and commissioning - Transfer of goods under supply contracts prior to final assembly does not amount to breach of notification conditions so long as the goods are ultimately used by the importer in execution of the specified project - Impugned order dropping the proceedings suffers from no legal infirmity – The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1645-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of accessories of Cell Separator used in blood component collection and therapeutic procedures - Rate of IGST applicable on import thereof - Appellant imported goods such as Platelet Kit and similar items, classified under various tariff items of CTH 9018 and discharged IGST at 12% availing concessional rate under Serial No.218 of Schedule-II of Notification No.01/2017-IT (Rate) - Department alleged that impugned goods fall under Serial No.423 of the said notification attracting IGST at 18%, and proposed reclassification under CTH 9033 - Whether the impugned goods are classifiable under CTH 9018 as claimed by the appellant or under CTH 9033 as held in the impugned order, for determining the appropriate rate of IGST payable, and whether consequent confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are sustainable - HELD - CTH 9018 covers all instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences along with their parts under the respective entries, whereas CTH 9033 is the residual entry covering parts and accessories not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90, as also evident from Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 90 - Applying General Interpretative Rules, parts and accessories suitable for use in the kidney dialysis apparatus are classifiable under CTH 9018 and not CTH 9033 - Board Circular dated 11.10.2019 clarifies that such parts and accessories of kidney dialysis apparatus, being Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy machine and Automated Peritoneal Dialysis machine, are chargeable to 12% IGST under Serial No.218 of Schedule-II of the said notification - Identical issue already decided in favour of an assessee in a coordinate Bench decision, which decision has been formally accepted by the department after re-examination - Issue held to be no longer res integra - Since appellant has paid IGST at the correct rate of 12% advalorem, no additional IGST is payable – The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-108-GSTAT-VRN | Tribunal SGST

GST – Transportation of goods with second E-way Bill generated after expiry of first with modified invoice number – Appellant was imposed penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act for transportation of goods without valid documents with intention to evade tax. Appellant claimed vehicle met with breakdown and challenged the penalty on ground that the breakdown resulted from circumstances beyond their control and no intention to evade tax was present – Whether generation of second E-way Bill without extension as per Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, with modified invoice number and with altered place of dispatch, c... [Read more]

2026-VIL-169-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Gujarat AAR - Applicability of GST on rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce - Liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Applicant used both owned and hired godowns exclusively for storage and warehousing services for raw agricultural produce on behalf of agencies such as NAFED and NCCF - Whether GST is applicable on rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce – Taxability under Reverse Charge Mechanism or Forward Charge Mechanism - HELD - Hiring of godowns from registered/unregistered persons on payment of rent, and provision of storage and warehousing services for raw agricultural produce in own and hired godowns for consideration, both fall under the definition of "services" under Section 2(102) of the CGST Act, 2017 and, being made for consideration in the course or furtherance of business, qualify as "supply" under Section 7 of the Act - The storage and warehousing service provided for raw agricultural produce is exempt under Entry No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). However, the activity of hiring godowns from registered/unregistered persons on payment of rent is a separate service, covered under Entry No. 16 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) having SAC 997212 and liable to 18% GST - These two services cannot be read in tandem merely because the hired godowns are used exclusively for the exempt warehousing activity and must be examined independently with reference to the notifications applicable to each – Further, following insertion of Entry No. 5AB in Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) by Notification No. 09/2024-Central Tax (Rate) with effect from 10.10.2024, covering renting of any property other than residential dwelling by an unregistered person to a registered person - GST at 18% is payable by the applicant on RCM basis on rent paid for godowns hired from unregistered persons with effect from 10.10.2024 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-128-GSTAT-CTT | Tribunal SGST

GST - Pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Interim Application by Revenue seeking recall/modification of earlier order admitting appeal without requiring further pre-deposit - Revenue prayer for reconsideration of interpretation of the expression "in addition to the amount paid under sub-section (6) of Section 107" occurring in Section 112(8)(b) - Assessee had made pre-deposit under Section 107(6) against the original disputed tax liability at the first appellate stage, the disputed tax liability was subsequently reduced by the Appellate Authority - On the appellant's application before the Tribunal for admission of appeal under Section 112(8)(b), it was held that no further pre-deposit was required as the amount already deposited exceeded the requisite percentage of the reduced tax in dispute - Whether the assessee is required to make a further deposit under Section 112(8) where the pre-deposit already made at the first appellate stage is equal to or exceeds the prescribed percentage of the tax remaining in dispute after reduction by the Appellate Authority - HELD - The statutory requirement of pre-deposit, though prescribed in general terms, cannot be applied mechanically in every situation without regard to the fact that the assessee may have already deposited an amount which, in terms of the reduced tax liability, is either equivalent to or exceeds the aggregate percentage of the tax remaining in dispute before the Tribunal - The pre-deposit already made by the assessee is not a payment towards any separate or independent liability but represents a specified portion of the disputed tax itself paid at the time of filing appeal under Section 107(6) - Following the ratio of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in M/s Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India, there is no ground warranting interference with the earlier order holding that no further pre-deposit is required to be paid by the assessee-appellant for pursuing the appeal under Section 112(8) - The Interim Application filed by Revenue is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-1640-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Inclusion of Insurance Premium in Taxable Value of Banking and Financial Service – Appellant, a microfinance company, facilitated group insurance coverage for borrowers, collecting insurance premium from customers and remitting the entire amount to the insurance company without any markup or retention, while separately collecting administrative charges for facilitation services - Department sought to include the entire amount collected as Insurance Income in the taxable value of appellant's Banking and Financial Service – Whether insurance premium represents consideration for service rendered by appella... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1095-J&K-CE | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Recoverability of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess refunded pursuant to CESTAT orders based on the law laid down in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., subsequently declared per incuriam in Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India - Whether the refund of EC and SHEC released to the petitioner pursuant to the law laid down in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. could be recovered on the strength of the subsequent overruling judgment in Unicorn Industries Pvt. Ltd. - HELD - The decision in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. had attained finality and was binding on the parties thereto - The CESTAT orders holding the petitio... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1653-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Includability of TDS in the value of taxable service - Appellant received service from a Foreign Service Provider and did not pay service tax on the portion withheld as TDS towards Income Tax - Whether the withholding tax borne by the appellant is includible in the value of taxable service – HELD - Tax deducted at source and paid to the credit of the Central Government by a service recipient out of its own funds, without recovering the same from the foreign service provider, does not form part of the value of taxable service under Section 67, not being consideration flowing to the service provider but a statutory obligation discharged by the recipient on its own account, this principle being settled by a consistent line of decisions of the Tribunal - The withholding tax retained by the appellant from its own funds is not includible in the value of taxable service, no service tax is payable on that component - The remand directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect was unnecessary and is set aside, and the penalty referable to this demand cannot survive – The appeal is allowed - Applicable rate of tax applicable under RCM under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 where the service was received while the rate stood at 12% but payment to the Foreign Service Provider was made after the rate was reduced to 10% - Appellant discharged service tax at ten per cent on services received from a Foreign Service Provider, contending that liability under Section 66A arises only on payment and that the rate on the date of payment governs, whereas the department confirmed a differential demand on the footing that twelve per cent was the applicable rate - Whether the rate applicable under the reverse charge mechanism is the rate in force on the date the service is received or the rate on the date of payment - HELD - The rate chargeable is the rate in force when the service is rendered, not the rate on the date of billing or receipt of payment, this principle having been applied on the reverse charge side as well, where the date of receipt of the service, not the date of payment, fixes the rate under Section 66A - A contrary decision relied upon by the appellant arose on the forward charge and did not advert to the decisions establishing the receipt-of-service test, and is accordingly not followed - The services in the present case were received while the rate stood at twelve per cent, and the deferral of payment to a later date after reduction of the rate does not attract the reduced rate - The demand confirmed on this count, together with interest, is sustainable in law; however, given that the dispute is one of interpretation, no penalty is leviable in this regard - Impugned order sustained to the extent it upholds this demand together with interest, but set aside as to the demand on the withholding tax component - Appeal partly allowed - Power to remand - The original authority found TDS to have been borne by the appellant and not deducted from the consideration payable to the provider, yet confirmed the demand treating the withholding tax as part of the consideration; the Appellate Authority, noticing this inconsistency, remanded the matter for factual verification instead of resolving it - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the matter under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD - The amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 withdrawing the power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals) has no bearing on an order passed under the Finance Act, 1994, since Section 83 of that Act does not make Section 35A applicable to service tax, and Section 85(4) confers on the Commissioner (Appeals) power to pass such order as he thinks fit, including an order of remand, in an appeal under Section 85 - The power to remand is, however, not to be exercised as a matter of course, more so in a case touching public revenue which ought to attain finality without needless rounds of adjudication - A remand is warranted only where a fact material to the decision remains to be ascertained, serving no purpose where that fact already stands recorded and is undisputed - The original authority had itself found that the withholding tax was borne by the appellant and not recovered from the Foreign Service Provider, yet confirmed the demand on the opposite footing in the operative part of the same order, an infirmity which the Commissioner (Appeals), having noticed the inconsistency, ought to have resolved rather than remanding. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1643-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Valuation – Includibility of notional value of designs and drawings supplied free of cost by customer in assessable value under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicle cabins, received designs and drawings free of cost from its customers - It amortised and added the cost of free inputs to the transaction value but did not do so for the drawings - Department held that the value of the drawings too ought to have been amortised and added under Explanation 1 to Rule 6 - Whether the notional value of the designs and drawings is includible in the assessable value of the cabins - HELD - Transaction value is the measure of duty under Section 4(1)(a) where the parties are unrelated and price is the sole consideration; Section 4(1)(b) applies only otherwise - Explanation 1 to Rule 6 requires the Revenue to establish that what was supplied by the buyer was consideration flowing for the sale, was for use in connection with production, and was either used in production or necessary for it - Material that merely tells the manufacturer what the buyer wants, without more, does not meet this test. This burden lies on the Revenue and is not discharged by assertion - The notice and the order in original proceeded merely on the fact that drawings were received free of cost, without any finding on whether they were production drawings or mere specifications of the customer's requirement, and without any finding that they were necessary for production - Treating free supply as automatically displacing the sole consideration condition assumes the very fact that needed to be proved. The distinction between detailed engineering drawings, which are includible, and specification drawings that only indicate layout and dimensions, which are not, is well settled and applies equally here - The unrebutted evidence shows the cabin design remains proprietary to the customer and the drawing is supplied only so the cabin will suit the customer's requirement, with nothing to show it was a production drawing - The appellant amortising the value of free inputs but not of drawings reflects a considered view of the law, not concealment - The notional value of the drawings was not includible in the assessable value and Rule 6 was not attracted; the finding rests on the Revenue's failure of proof, not on any finding as to what the drawings actually contained - Demand on this ground set aside and the appeal is allowed - Quantification of demand on a customer-suggested percentage – Quantification of demand based on a percentage volunteered by one customer, and applied uniformly to all customers - One customer stated that the value of its drawings could not be ascertained but suggested that 0.98%, its own tractor development cost, be adopted - Department applied this percentage to the value of cabins cleared to every customer - Whether such quantification is a determination of value known to the Act and the Valuation Rules - HELD - A figure volunteered by a customer is a suggestion, not evidence, and the duty of determining value rests with the Central Excise Officer alone - The figure related to tractor development cost, an entirely different subject matter, not to the value of cabin drawings. It came from one customer yet was applied to all customers, a course the Appellate Authority itself found incorrect - It was also applied to the wrong base, being expressed as a percentage of the value of cabins cleared, when Explanation 1 requires the value of what the buyer actually supplied - The SCN named no Rule under which the quantification was made; if Rule 6 did not apply, the only recourse was the residuary Rule 11, which requires reasonable means consistent with principle and a recorded basis, neither of which was shown - Section 14A, which allows a special audit by a cost accountant where value is not correctly declared, was available but never invoked - The 0.98% addition is not a determination of value but an assumption dressed up as a computation - Since a finding that quantification is unsustainable is in substance a finding that the demand itself is unsustainable, and the notice relied on no evidence of value, a remand to work out the amortised cost afresh was not permissible; a defect in the notice cannot be cured at the appellate or remand stage - Limitation – Invocation of extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposability of penalty under Section 11AC - Whether the extended period was available and penalty imposable - HELD - The extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty; each requires a state of mind - The appellant filed periodical returns and was subject to periodical audit, and the omission surfaced during an audit of its own records - No positive act of concealment, withheld document or misdeclaration was identified - Mere failure to declare is not wilful suppression, and an audit report alone cannot justify invoking the extended period - The very customer who supplied the drawings said their value could not be ascertained, so it is difficult to see what the appellant could have concealed - The situation was revenue neutral, since duty paid would have been available as credit to the customers, and this factor, along with the returns filed, the audits conducted, and the interpretational nature of the issue, supports an absence of intent to evade. The extended period was not available - Penalty under Section 11AC rests on the same ingredients as the extended period proviso; since neither wilful suppression nor intent to evade is made out, the penalty does not survive, independent of the finding on merits - Interest and penalty must follow the fate of the duty demand, which fails in its entirety. [Read less]

2026-VIL-113-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-profiteering - Failure to pass on benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema admission tickets from 18% to 12% - Respondent did not reduce ticket prices commensurately upon the rate reduction and instead increased the base price for two categories, maintaining the same cum-tax selling price, while reducing prices only for a subsequent limited period which was excluded from investigation - Whether the Respondent contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of the rate reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices - HELD - Section 171 mandates that any reduction in rate of tax shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices, admits of no exception, and must be strictly adhered to - Costing and market-related factors, including considerations such as the performance or age of a movie or demand, are irrelevant to the enquiry, which is confined to whether the tax reduction was passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - The Respondent failed to substantiate with cogent evidence that it had charged reduced prices from the date of the rate reduction, and did not challenge the methodology or computation of profiteering adopted by the DGAP, which therefore stands uncontested - The contention that no benefit of input tax credit could be retained since tickets involve no stocking of goods does not detract from the obligation to pass on the benefit of rate reduction, given that the Respondent is registered and supplies taxable services - Freedom to determine prices in a fair and transparent manner cannot be used to defeat the statutory requirement of passing on the benefit of the rate reduction - Respondent failed to discharge the rebuttable presumption of profiteering by producing cogent evidence to justify the increase in base price - DGAP report accepted and objections of the Respondent rejected - Respondent held to have contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest in the Consumer Welfare Funds – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-112-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-profiteering - Failure to pass on benefit of reduction in GST rate on cinema admission tickets from 18% to 12% - Respondent, operating a single-screen theatre selling tickets in three categories, did not reduce the cum-tax selling price of tickets after the rate reduction but instead increased the base price, thereby maintaining the same selling price and denying the benefit of the rate reduction to recipients - Respondent contended that ticket prices were fixed by the State Government and it was not permitted to reduce prices, that the ticket amount included charges other than admission which the DGAP failed to bifurcate, and that no invoices are issued and no goods are supplied to viewers - Whether the Respondent contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act by failing to pass on the benefit of the rate reduction by way of commensurate reduction in prices - HELD - Section 171 mandates that any reduction in rate of tax shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices, admits of no exception, and must be strictly adhered to - The State Government orders relied upon only fix the maximum permissible price and do not prohibit a theatre owner from reducing prices upon a reduction in tax, the discretion to reduce prices resting with the theatre owner - The Respondent's admission of having increased the base price while maintaining the same cum-tax price constitutes admission of non-passing of the benefit of tax reduction - Costing and market-related factors, including charges other than the ticket price, are irrelevant to the enquiry, which is confined to whether the tax reduction was passed on by way of commensurate reduction in price - The methodology and computation adopted by the DGAP remaining unchallenged and uncontested by the Respondent, the facts, figures and conclusions of the DGAP stand established - Respondent failed to discharge the burden of justifying the price increase - DGAP report and supplementary report accepted and objections of the Respondent rejected - Respondent held to have contravened Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and directed to deposit the profiteered amount along with interest in the Consumer Welfare Funds – Ordered accordingly - Anti-profiteering - Leviability of penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period during which profiteering was established - Recipients of the services for the period under investigation being unidentifiable - Whether penalty can be levied upon the Respondent for the profiteered amount pertaining to the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.10.2019 - HELD - Where the recipients are not identifiable, the case is covered under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - The provision for levy of penalty came into force only with effect from 01.01.2020, and no penalty can be levied retrospectively for the period prior thereto - No penalty held leviable upon the Respondent for the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.10.2019. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1091-PAT | High Court SGST

GST - Validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017, Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018 and Circular No. 169/01/2022 GST dated 12.03.2022 issued by the CBIC assigning functions of proper officer to Central Tax Officers under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenged the Circulars on the ground that the Board had no power to issue the same and thereby confer power of assignment of functions of proper officer upon Central Tax Officers – Petitioner contention that only the Commissioner or an officer of Central Tax assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board, could qualify as proper officer under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act - Whether the Circulars issued by the Board assigning functions of proper officer to Central Tax Officers are valid and within the powers conferred upon the Board - HELD – The Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue is illustrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. case. However, the ratio of Canon India ratio distinguishable - The definition of proper officer under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act is materially distinct from that under the Customs Act, since it was never disputed that the officers assigning functions under the impugned Circulars were themselves Central Tax officers, unlike the officers of the DRI under the Customs Act who were not officers of customs - The Central Government, in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the CGST Act, had already appointed central tax officers by notification 19.06.2017 and vested them with powers under the Act, and the Board thereafter assigned functions of proper officer to such officers by the impugned Circulars in exercise of powers under Section 2(91) read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and Section 5(2) of the CGST Act - Such assignment of functions by Circular does not require a Notification under Section 167 of the CGST Act, which pertains only to delegation of powers by the Commissioner and is not attracted to assignment of functions under Section 2(91) - The pleas questioning the validity of the three Circulars held to have no basis to stand and rejected - The impugned order is an appealable order. The petitioner is directed to seek statutory remedy of appeal, if so advised, in accordance with law - The writ petition stands disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-1096-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Maintainability of writ petition against Order-in-Original, Bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the DGGI under Section 74 of the CGST Act, and subsequently amended the writ petition to challenge the consequential Order-in-Original passed during the pendency of the writ proceedings - Whether the writ petition against the Order-in-Original ought to be entertained notwithstanding the availability of the statutory appellate remedy - HELD - The existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is a material consideration while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fact that the original challenge was instituted when the Show Cause Notice was pending does not alter the position once the adjudicatory proceedings have culminated in an Order-in-Original during the pendency of the writ proceedings - The challenge to the Order-in-Original raises issues concerning the factual and evidentiary foundation of the proceedings, including the nature of the ITC allegedly availed, the suppliers involved, the allegations of fraud, the material relied upon and the alleged overlap between State and Central proceedings, which are matters that can appropriately be examined in the statutory appellate proceedings, the appellate authority being competent to examine the legality and correctness of the adjudication - The requirement of statutory pre-deposit cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for bypassing the statutory remedy - The fact that the petition was initially filed when the Show Cause Notice was pending does not justify continuation of the writ proceedings for adjudication of the challenge to the Order-in-Original once the adjudicatory proceedings have been completed and the order is independently amenable to challenge under Section 107 - The writ petition is dismissed - Bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 against initiation of proceedings by the Central tax authority on the same subject matter already proceeded upon by the State tax authority - Whether the proceedings initiated by the DGGI concern the "same subject matter" as the proceedings earlier initiated by the State GST authorities so as to attract the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act - HELD - The expression "subject matter" refers to the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from a particular contravention which the Department seeks to assess or recover. The statutory bar is attracted only where two proceedings are, in substance, directed towards the same or overlapping tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from the same contravention - Proceedings concerning distinct infractions not constituting the same subject matter merely because the tax liability or obligation may be similar - The mere fact that two proceedings arise out of the affairs of the same assessee, concern the same general period, or involve ITC cannot, by itself, establish identity of subject matter - The State proceedings under Section 73 concerned alleged availment of ineligible ITC from cancelled/non-existent suppliers, whereas the DGGI proceedings under Section 74 arose from an independent investigation into alleged fraudulent availment of ITC, indicating a distinction in the nature of the allegations forming the basis of the respective proceedings - The mere fact that certain ITC claims or transactions may feature in both proceedings cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the two proceedings concern the identical liability or the same alleged contravention. The statutory prohibition being against initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter and not against every subsequent proceeding concerning the same assessee or a related transaction - The fact that the DGGI proceedings were initiated after the State GST proceedings had commenced does not, by itself, attract the statutory bar - The contention under Section 6(2)(b) does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction - Validity of a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering more than one financial year - Whether issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice under Section 74 covering multiple financial years is impermissible - HELD - Having regard to the language employed in Sections 73(3) and 74(3), as well as Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, the statutory scheme does not prohibit issuance of a consolidated SCN covering more than one financial year - The mere fact that the SCN covers more than one financial year cannot, by itself, render the notice without jurisdiction. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1093-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Refund - Eligibility of a SEZ unit to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - Rejection of refund claim on the ground that Section 16 of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules in conjunction stipulate that only suppliers supplying goods and/or services to SEZ units are eligible to claim refund, and that there is no enabling provision for the SEZ unit itself to claim refund of unutilized credit - Whether a SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - HELD - The issue is squarely covered by the judgment in Platinum Holdings Private Limited case – The Rule... [Read more]

2026-VIL-110-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

GST – Refund of accumulated input tax credit in case of inverted duty structure – Application of Circular No.135/05/2020 restricting refund applies when inputs attract higher GST rate than outputs – Respondent engaged in scouring, dyeing and washing of grey fabric on job-work basis. Inputs such as chemicals, dyes and consumables used in processing attract GST at 18% and 12%, whereas outward supply of processed fabrics attracts GST at 5% - Original authority rejected refund claims on basis of CBIC Circular No.135/05/2020-GST, para 3.2, contending that inverted duty structure refund is not available when input and output supplies are the same. First appellate authority allowed the refund claims and directed original adjudicating authority to review and recalculate the refund amount - Revenue appealed on ground that FAA exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding case to adjudicating authority under Section 107(11) of CGST Act – Whether Circular No.135/05/2020-GST applies to case of inverted duty structure where inputs attract higher GST rate than outputs – HELD - The Circular No.135/05/2020 applies only to cases where there is reduction in GST rate on the same goods at different points in time. The provisions of Circular specifically state that where input and output are the same goods though attracting different tax rates at different points in time, refund is not available under Section 54(3)(ii) - In present case, there is genuine inverted duty structure where inputs attract higher GST rate (18%/12%) than outputs (5%). This is different from rate reduction scenario covered by the circular - The final product when sold in open market attracts same rate of GST. There is no reduction in GST rate. As per Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M/s Vindhya Spinning Mills case, if there is higher rate of tax on inputs compared to outputs, the party is entitled to refund of unutilised input tax credit – Revenue appeal is dismissed - Power of FAA to remand the matter for recalculation or re-quantification of refund amount – HELD - Once first appellate authority decides major legal issue in appeal, directing recalculation or re-quantification of refund amount in accordance with appellate findings is not remand under Section 107(11). First appellate authority did not leave refund claim open for fresh adjudication but directed ministerial re-computation to give effect to its findings. Such consequential direction cannot be equated with prohibited remand. The fact that refund was subsequently re-worked and already sanctioned and paid demonstrates that appellate order was workable and capable of implementation. Thus, the contention of the Revenue regarding remand of the case is not correct. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1087-ORI | High Court SGST

GST - Maintainability of successive writ petitions - Successive writ petition after withdrawal - In response to show-cause notice for multiple financial years, petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions challenging same order - Both earlier petitions were withdrawn, first without seeking liberty to file fresh petition and second with liberty to file better petition - Present writ petition filed raising identical issues and seeking identical reliefs - Whether successive writ petition is maintainable after withdrawal of earlier petitions - HELD - A successive writ petition on same cause of action is not maintainable as ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-121-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of CGST Act, 2017 - Maintainability of appeal against penalty-only order without payment of pre-deposit - Appellant's appeal against order confirming penalty under Sections 122(1)(i) and 122(1)(vii) of the Act was flagged by Registry for non-payment of statutory pre-deposit under proviso to Section 112(8) - SCN in the matter was issued on 24.12.2021 and impugned order was passed on 31.10.2025, prior to which the proviso mandating ten per cent pre-deposit for penalty-only orders was inserted with effect from 01.10.2025 - Whether pre-deposit of ten per cent under proviso to Section 112(8) was required to be paid by the appellant for maintaining an appeal against a penalty-only order, where the lis originated prior to insertion of the said proviso - HELD - A right of appeal is a vested substantive right that accrues to a party when proceedings are first initiated - A statutory provision imposing a new substantive burden ought not to be applied retroactively to proceedings already in motion unless a contrary legislative intention is clearly manifested - The ratio laid down in respect of the pari materia amendment to Section 107(6) of the Act, which was held to be inapplicable to appeals arising from proceedings instituted before its effective date, applies equally to the proviso to Section 112(8), both provisions being founded on the same textual footing and legislative purpose concerning pre-deposit obligations - Since the lis in the present matter arose from a show cause notice issued before the proviso to Section 112(8) came into force, the parties' rights and obligations are governed by the law as it stood when the proceedings commenced, and the pre-deposit obligation introduced with effect from 01.10.2025 cannot be applied retrospectively to create a fresh condition for the appeal - The objection raised by the Registry regarding non-payment of pre-deposit is held to be misconceived and is set aside for the limited purpose of admission - The appeal is admitted and directed to be numbered – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-1097-GUJ | High Court VAT

Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Classification of chewing gum – Taxability as "sweets and sweetmeats" under Entry 74A of Schedule II of the GVAT Act or under the residuary Entry 87 - The assessee classified sales of chewing gum under Entry 74A attracting tax at 4%. The Assessing Officer held chewing gum liable to tax at 12.5% under the residuary entry - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding chewing gum taxable under Entry 74A as ‘sweets and sweetmeats’ - HELD - A literal application of the words "sweets and sweetmeats" would not include chewing gum. The relevant test for classification is the common parlance test, namely whether a particular item falls under a specific entry as understood by those who deal with it - The Supreme Court in Associated Distributors Ltd. has held that bubble gum in common parlance cannot be construed as mithai or sweetmeat. Bubble gum and chewing gum are not eatable items. They are kept in the mouth and thrown out after chewing. They are used as a mouth freshener and are not made only of sugar but also contain gum base and waxes. This finding of the Supreme Court is not distinguishable on the ground that the question before it did not directly concern classification of chewing gum, since the Court categorically held that bubble gum cannot be considered sweetmeat after considering the common parlance test - There is no conflict between two specific entries in the present case. The only question is whether chewing gum falls within Entry 74A - Since the Supreme Court has already answered this question, the decision applies squarely to the facts. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that chewing gum is consumed for its sweet juice and therefore qualifies as a sweet. This finding is contrary to the binding decision of the Supreme Court that chewing gum is not an eatable product - The Tribunal also erred in relying on a decision holding that duty cannot be levied under the residuary entry once an item is considered under a specific entry, since there is no other entry in Schedule II to levy duty except the residuary Entry 87 - The classification code assigned by the Commissioner under the entry of sweets and sweetmeats for e-services does not alter this position, since the code is based on the Excise Tariff classification of chewing gum, which itself carries a rate equivalent to the residuary entry - Chewing gum cannot be classified as "sweets and sweetmeats" under Entry 74A and is taxable under the residuary Entry 87 - Both questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee – The Revenue appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-114-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-profiteering - Non-passing of benefit of additional Input Tax Credit accruing upon implementation of GST in a real estate project - Respondent, discharging GST with availability of Input Tax Credit on construction of the project, became eligible post-GST to avail credit of tax paid on both inputs and input services, whereas in the pre-GST regime credit of excise duty on inputs was not available, resulting in an increase in the ratio of input tax credit to purchase value and consequent additional benefit accruing to the Respondent - Whether the Respondent has profiteered in contravention of Section 171 by not passing on the benefit of additional input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in prices, and the quantum required to be passed on - HELD - Section 171(1) requires the benefit of input tax credit to be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices - The revision in computation made by the DGAP, after taking into account the reversal of unutilised input tax credit by the Respondent, is in accordance with the facts and material on record and is accepted - The Respondent having accepted the revised computation and furnished flat-wise reconciliation of the amount attributable to each recipient in accordance with the area of the units and the benefit determined, such reconciliation is taken on record - The Respondent is required to return the amount not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices, together with interest from the date of collection of the higher amount till the date of return, in terms of the relevant provision of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Respondent directed to pass on the determined profiteered amount along with applicable GST and interest to the eligible homebuyers as per the flat-wise reconciliation, and to furnish an undertaking in respect of an amount adjusted against a buyer from whom payment is yet to be received – Ordered accordingly - Anti-profiteering - Leviability of penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period of investigation preceding the provision's commencement - Whether penalty is imposable upon the Respondent for profiteering determined for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 - HELD - Section 171(3A), which provides for imposition of penalty for profiteering, came into force only with effect from 01.01.2020 and was not in force during the period under investigation - No penalty under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 held imposable upon the Respondent in the present proceedings. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1099-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Challenge to validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 to the extent it denies Input Tax Credit to a bona fide recipient on account of non-payment of tax by the supplier - Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 is constitutionally valid - HELD - The issue is no longer res integra. The provision has specifically been upheld by the Supreme Court, which rejected the argument that the provision must be read down merely because the supplier may default. The condition is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. It merely requires the recipient to establish, through cogent material, that the tax charged has been actually deposited by the supplier - The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) does not survive - Whether a writ petition challenging a SCN and Order-in-Original under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 ought to be entertained where grounds urged include denial of natural justice, the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, and duplication of proceedings with an earlier DGGI investigation - HELD - The mere availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the writ jurisdiction, particularly where there is a breach of natural justice or a want of jurisdiction. This exception is to be invoked sparingly and not where the grievance is factual in nature and capable of being cured by the Appellate Authority - Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proving actual receipt of goods and actual payment of tax by suppliers is a matter requiring appreciation of material such as transport records, delivery challans and payment trails. This exercise is more appropriately undertaken by the Appellate Authority - The record indicates that a hearing was afforded and the petitioner's reply was considered though not accepted. Whether such consideration was adequate is essentially a question of fact requiring scrutiny of the reply, hearing notings and reasoning recorded. Even if any infirmity in the hearing is made out, such infirmity is curable and does not go to the root of jurisdiction - Whether the subject matter of the earlier DGGI proceedings under Section 122 and the impugned proceedings under Section 73 is, in substance, identical so as to attract the bar under Section 6(2)(b) is a mixed question of fact and law more appropriately examined by the Appellate Authority - The plea of parallel or duplicated proceedings is similarly a matter requiring factual verification not appropriate for a writ court where an efficacious alternative remedy is available - The petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-109-GSTAT-LCK | Tribunal SGST

GST – Refund of accumulated input tax credit due to inverted duty structure – Respondent claimed refund of accumulated ITC due to inverted duty structure under Section 54(3) read with Rule 89(5). Original refund claims were rejected on ground they were filed manually instead of electronically on GST portal. After remand by first appellate authority, respondent re-filed five refund claims - Proper officer rejected all claims contending that amended formula under Notification No.14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 is prospective only and that restriction under Notification No.09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.07.2022 restricts refund for specified goods falling under Chapters 15 and 27 - First appellate authority allowed appeals and directed to sanction refunds. Department appeal contending that amended formula should not be applied to refund claims for periods prior to 05.07.2022 – Whether amended formula is prospective or retrospective; whether restriction under Notification No.09/2022 applies to ITC accumulated before 18.07.2022; and whether supplementary refund claims are permissible – HELD – The amendment made by Notification No.14/2022-Central Tax in Rule 89(5) is curative and clarificatory in nature and is applicable retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed within period prescribed under Section 54(1) – The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Ascent Meditech Ltd. held amendment is curative and clarificatory in nature and should be applied retrospectively. Supreme Court dismissed Department's SLP against this decision, thereby upholding High Court's view - A circular cannot prevail over statutory provisions. The Circular No.181/13/2022 cannot restrict benefits otherwise available under statutory provisions – Further, there is no restriction in filing supplementary or differential refund claims provided filed within prescribed limitation period. The supplementary refund claims for left out amounts due to inadvertent errors within statutory period are permissible – The Limitation objection is not sustainable as Notification No.13/2022 excludes period 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation computation. First Appellate Authority examined all relevant issues and gave reasons for allowing refund claims based on CGST Act/Rules and judicial decisions – The Order of First Appellate Authority upheld and Revenue appeal is rejected [Read less]

2026-VIL-133-GSTAT-CMT | Tribunal SGST

GST - Appeal involving ‘question of law’ within the meaning of Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Determination of Coram under Section 109(8) – Respondent-revenue contended that no question of law was involved in the appeal - Whether the appeal involves a question of law requiring it to be heard by a Division Bench of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member, as opposed to a Single Member - HELD - Section 109(8) provides that an appeal within the prescribed monetary limit which does not involve any question of law may be heard by a Single Member, and that in all other cases it shall be heard by a Division Ben... [Read more]

2026-VIL-131-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Confiscation and penalty proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of CGST Act, 2017 - Maintainability of Revenue appeal confined to amount of fine where penalty in lieu of confiscation of goods has already been set aside by first Appellate Authority - First Appellate Authority set aside the orders of the Adjudicating officer holding that seizure and confiscation under Section 130 cannot be resorted to where goods are merely found unaccounted, and that the Department ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 73/74 of the Act instead - Whether an appeal may be filed against the order of fine alone where the penalty imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods under Section 130 has itself been set aside by FAA - HELD – The Section 35(1) of the CGST Act requires every registered person to maintain true and correct accounts, and Section 35(6) provides that where such accounts are not maintained, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable on unaccounted goods as if such goods had been supplied, applying the provisions of Section 73 or 74 mutatis mutandis - Where excess or unaccounted goods are found on survey of business premises, the proper officer is empowered only to initiate proceedings under Section 73/74 of the Act and not under Section 130 for confiscation and levy of penalty and fine - Proceedings under Section 130 read with Rule 120 initiated in the present matters, instead of proceedings under Section 73/74, are not sustainable in law - The FAA has rightly quashed such proceedings and set aside the demand of penalty and fine - Once the very foundation of the proceedings under Section 130, including the fine imposed thereunder, stands quashed, there remains no question of the amount of fine surviving independently or being left open for maintenance by the Tribunal - Direction by Commissioner of State Tax to file the present appeals confined only to the fine, without challenging the quashing of the underlying proceedings, reflects want of application of mind – The Revenue appeals are held to be without merit and are dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-118-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Requirement of payment of interest, late fee and penalty under proviso to Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as a condition for revocation - Respondent's registration was cancelled for failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months - First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal against cancellation upon verification that the respondent had filed the returns and paid the admitted tax - Department contended that the First Appellate Authority erred in allowing the appeal without considering the proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules which requires payment of interest, penalty and late fee as well before an application for revocation can be entertained - Whether the First Appellate Authority was within its powers to allow the appeal and restore the registration without causing verification that interest, late fee and penalty had also been paid along with the admitted tax for the relevant period - HELD - The liability arising from the returns in question is not confined to the principal tax alone but expressly extends to interest, late fee and penalty, which are substantive obligations integral to the correct adjudication of any dispute concerning the returns - The FAA approached the matter solely on the basis of verification of tax payment and filing of returns, without any discernible consideration of the proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Rules, and this omission goes to the root of the substantive liability and the completeness of the adjudicatory exercise, amounting to a jurisdictional and substantive error - Where the amounts claimed are effectively admitted, recovery of interest and late fee is to be pursued under Section 50 and Section 47 of the Act respectively through the statutory machinery under Section 79 of the Act, being the appropriate mechanism for recovery of such admitted arrears - In addition, penalty as contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rules is separately exigible - The order impugned is held to be modified and the appeal is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-1090-MAD-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner imported goods described as Rice Bran, classified the same under a tariff item and claimed levy of IGST at Nil rate under the relevant notification entry, which claim was accepted by the proper officer while processing the Bill of Entry - On audit, Department took the view that the goods were liable to IGST at 5% under a different notification entry and alleged that the Petitioner had wilfully misclassified the goods and wrongly availed the benefit of the notification, invoking the extended period under Section 28(4) and raising a demand for differential duty - Whether the ingredients necessary for invoking Section 28(4) of the Customs Act are made out in the facts of the case - HELD - Section 28(4) applies only where non-levy, short-levy or short-payment of duty is by reason of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, as distinct from Section 28(1) which applies for reasons other than such conduct - The mere fact that the Department subsequently takes a different view regarding classification or applicability of an exemption notification does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period, absent material to establish that the short-payment was occasioned by collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression - The Petitioner disclosed the description and classification of the goods in the Bill of Entry, which was processed and accepted by the proper officer, and no material was placed to show concealment of material particulars or deliberate false declaration - The mere use of the expression wilful misstatement in the show cause notice or impugned order cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 28(4) absent the Department establishing the factual basis therefor - The dispute being essentially with regard to applicability of the exemption notification and the rate of IGST, the essential conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied - Impugned order-in-original set aside, without precluding the respondent from taking such action as may be permissible under Section 28 of the Act subject to the applicable period of limitation – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1662-CESTAT-ALH-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Valuation of works contract service - Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 - Demand based on difference between figures in Income Tax Return and Service Tax Return - Appellant, registered under the composition scheme for works contract service and engaged in execution of original works, paid service tax on forty percent of the value of the works contract under Rule 2A(ii)(A), under reverse charge sharing fifty percent of the liability with the service recipient - Demand was raised alleging a difference between the Income Tax Return and Service Tax Return figures, and confirmed by treating part of the work as finishing work taxable at seventy percent under Rule 2A(ii)(B) - Whether the demand, treating part of the work as taxable at seventy percent and based merely on the return-figure difference, is sustainable - HELD - The work is execution of original works taxable only at forty percent under Rule 2A(ii)(A), the tax having already been paid under the relevant exemption Notification, the net rate under reverse charge being further reduced to reflect the fifty percent share - A demand founded solely on the difference between an Income Tax Return and a Service Tax Return, without examining the books of account or evidence that the recorded transactions are contrary to the facts, is not sustainable, the charges having to be based on the books of account and other admissible evidence - The notice, issued without such examination, is not sustainable, and the demand is set aside - Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Show cause notice was issued invoking the extended period beyond the normal period - Whether the extended period is invokable - HELD - No extended period is invokable, the notice having been issued beyond the normal period and thus barred by limitation - A difference of opinion between the department and an assessee, or non-payment under a genuine belief that duty is not leviable, does not by itself establish wilful suppression, and the ingredients for invoking the extended period cannot be presumed merely from self-assessment - The demand is barred by limitation - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-122-GSTAT-ERN | Tribunal SGST

GST - Detention and seizure of goods in transit - Validity of order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 beyond the statutory time limit of seven days from service of notice - Appellant's vehicle carrying sponge iron was intercepted for expiry of the e-way bill validity, notice under Section 129(3) was issued on 28.06.2019 but the order for payment of penalty under Section 129(3) was passed only on 26.07.2019, 28 days after issue of the notice - Whether an order passed under Section 129(3) beyond the mandatory seven-day time limit from the date of service of notice is valid - HELD - Section 129(3) mandates tha... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1092-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Opportunity to show cause prior to blocking of Input Tax Credit - Respondent blocked the Petitioner's Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger on the premise that the Petitioner had claimed credit on the strength of documents received from certain fictitious entities - Petitioner contended that it was not afforded a pre-decisional opportunity to show cause - Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the decision to block Input Tax Credit - HELD - The Respondent's record of an intimation of personal hearing a... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1089-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Validity of ex-parte adjudication order passed without effective opportunity of hearing - Show cause notice proposing reversal of Input Tax Credit and all subsequent communications, including reminders fixing personal hearing, were uploaded only on the common GST portal – Due to change of the Petitioner's GST consultant during the relevant period, such communications remained unnoticed, resulting in the Petitioner neither submitting a reply nor appearing during adjudication - Petitioner contended that the mismatch between the relevant GST returns could be explained with supporting documents and that the supplier ha... [Read more]

2026-VIL-126-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST – Levy of penalty for mismatch of vehicle number in e-way bill, Difference of opinion between Judicial Member and Technical Member - Detention of goods and imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 68 and Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Revenue appeal against appellate order setting aside penalty imposed for mismatch of vehicle registration number in e-way bill - Whether an e-way bill reflecting an entirely different vehicle registration number, and not merely a one or two digit variation, constitutes a valid document for transportation of goods or whether such mismatch constitutes a deliberate violation with intent to evade tax or a bona fide error entitled to the benefit of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST - HELD - The Judicial Member of the view that the CBIC circular covering minor errors of one or two digits cannot be extended to a case of complete substitution of vehicle number, that the presumption of intention to evade tax stood established from the surrounding circumstances and was not rebutted by the respondent; the first Appellate Authority committed a manifest error of law and facts in setting aside the penalty, warranting restoration of the adjudicating officer's order - The Technical Member was of the view that mens rea or intention to evade tax is a sine qua non for invoking Section 129. The accompanying e-invoices contained no discrepancy as to description, quantity, value or destination of goods, and the mismatch in the e-way bill was a bona fide typographical error unsupported by any circumstantial evidence of malicious intent. The presumption of intention to evade tax stood successfully rebutted, warranting affirmation of the order of the first Appellate Authority - In view of the divergent opinions of the two Members on the point of difference, namely, whether an e-way bill reflecting an entirely different vehicle number constitutes a valid document for movement of goods or a deliberate violation with intent to evade tax, the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Vice President, GSTAT, Uttar Pradesh under Section 109(9) of the CGST Act for nomination of third member to resolve the point of difference - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-1094-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Cancellation of registration - Validity of Order of Cancellation of GST registration passed without verification of the place of business – Denial of opportunity to reply to Show Cause Notice under Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on the premise that the petitioner was not conducting business from the registered place of business and had raised invoices without underlying supply - Whether the cancellation of registration without verification of the place of business as contemplated under Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and without opportunity to the petitioner to respond... [Read more]

2026-VIL-132-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Pre-deposit under Section 112(8) read with Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Appropriation of amount appropriated during investigations towards belated payment of self-assessed tax can be treated as pre-deposit for admission of appeal - Respondent contended that the amount paid was towards discharge of admitted tax liability voluntarily through belated returns - Whether the amount paid by the taxpayer during investigations, and subsequently appropriated against the confirmed demand, constitutes admitted liability or disputed liability for the purpose of determining the requirement of further pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the Act - HELD - The appellant neither contested nor raised any dispute about the demand and appropriation of the said amount. The appellant had in fact, admitted the tax and interest liabilities, contesting only the imposition of penalty and specifically pleading that the payment was voluntary - The reliance placed on the decision permitting adjustment of protest payments towards pre-deposit is distinguishable, as no protest in any form was filed by the Appellant either with the Adjudicating Authority or the Department - The contention that the first Appellate Authority had accepted waiver of pre-deposit is devoid of any such discussion or direction in the impugned order - The pre-deposit under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the Act being a condition precedent to entertaining an appeal, an appeal in absence of compliance thereof would remain a dead letter and is not liable to be entertained - The amount paid through belated returns and not disputed at any previous quasi-judicial stage is to be treated as admitted liability, and the appellant is required to pay the full amount of admitted tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty together with ten per cent of the remaining disputed tax as pre-deposit - Pre-deposits under Sections 107(6) and 112(8) of the Act are held to be required to be made before admitting the appeal, and the Appellant is granted time for payment thereof, upon proof of which the Registry shall place the matter before the Bench for orders on admission - The request of the appellant is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-123-GSTAT-GZB | Tribunal SGST

GST - Application seeking urgent hearing and out-of-turn fixation of appeal - Power to exempt from compliance with procedural requirements under Rule 13 of GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 - Appellant's GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, resulting in the business coming to a complete standstill and continuing deprivation of its sole source of livelihood - Whether sufficient cause is shown for exempting the appellant from awaiting completion of the ordinary Registry scrutiny process under Rule 24 for the purpose of urgent listing of the appeal - HELD - Rule 13 of GSTAT (Procedure) Rule... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1086-GAU | High Court SGST

GST - Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 CGST Act - Cessation of Provisional attachment after one year - Petitioners, relatives of persons involved in company under investigation for issuing fake invoices, had their bank accounts provisionally attached on 19.05.2022 and 23.05.2022 without service of order in Form GST DRC-22 - Petitioners submitted representations for revocation of freezing but no response received from respondent authorities - Whether provisional attachment orders continue to operate beyond one year from the date of issuance - HELD - Under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, read with Rule... [Read more]

2026-VIL-161-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST - Kerala AAR – Scope of phrase “Educational institution” - GST Exemption on Education and Training Programs - Coaching and Training for Professional Qualifications - Applicant provided coaching and training services for professional courses such as Chartered Accountancy, ACCA, CMA, CPA and similar qualifications offered by government-recognised professional bodies - Whether applicant qualifies as educational institution under Notification No. 12/2017 and whether coaching services for externally-conducted professional qualifications are exempt from GST - HELD - Applicant does not qualify as educational institution within meaning of clause (y) of paragraph 2 of Notification No. 12/2017 because applicant is not providing education directly as part of curriculum leading to recognised qualification - Educational institution means institution providing education as part of curriculum for obtaining qualification recognised by law. Applicant provides coaching and training to prepare students for examinations and qualifications conducted and awarded by professional bodies and universities, but itself neither conducts examinations nor awards qualifications - Fact that qualifications for which coaching imparted are recognised by law and courses conducted by government-acknowledged professional bodies is irrelevant. Essential requirement is that applicant must itself provide the prescribed curriculum and award the degree or qualification - Applicant acts as coaching institute offering preparatory coaching for examinations conducted by external bodies which does not bring it within definition of educational institution. There is distinction between conducting degree courses leading to recognised qualifications and providing preparatory coaching for examinations conducted by other bodies - Exemption under Serial No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) not applicable to applicant's education programme and training services – Ordered accordingly - GST on Collection and Remittance of Examination Fees - Applicant collected examination fees, registration fees, subscription fees and other related charges from students payable to professional bodies and universities and remitted same without markup - Whether collection and remittance of such fees without charging separate consideration attracts GST and whether applicant qualifies as pure agent - HELD - Applicant has not established that examination fees and other charges collected from students and remitted to professional bodies and universities were received in capacity of pure agent within meaning of Rule 33 of CGST Rules, 2017 - Rule 33 provides that where supplier acts as pure agent of recipient of supply, expenditure or costs incurred by supplier can be excluded from value of supply if all prescribed conditions satisfied. Conditions require that supplier acts as pure agent under contractual agreement, that payment made on behalf of recipient be separately indicated in invoice, and that supplies procured as pure agent be in addition to services supplied on own account - Applicant has not clarified whether examination fees collected were under authorisation from students to act as pure agent or whether such amounts separately indicated in invoices issued to students - In absence of these material facts, Authority cannot hold that applicant acted as pure agent. Accordingly, amounts collected for examination fees and other charges cannot be excluded from taxable value of services supplied by applicant unless all conditions of Rule 33 are satisfied - GST on Textbooks and Study Materials - Applicant provided coaching and training with printed study materials, digital learning resources, recorded lectures and academic content as integral part without separate charge - Whether supply of textbooks and study materials qualifies for exemption or forms part of composite supply - HELD - Printed textbooks, printed study materials and digital learning resources are not independent supply but rather integral part of composite supply of commercial training and coaching services. Supply of textbooks and study materials along with coaching and training form composite supply where coaching and training services constitute principal supply - Supplies cannot be artificially segregated into supply of training services and supply of study materials when nature of transaction is composite supply. Fact that single consolidated fee charged for complete coaching programme including classroom sessions, printed materials and digital resources reinforces that materials form integral component of overall educational service. Study materials supplied only to students enrolled in applicant's courses and not available for independent purchase. Exemption available under Serial No. 119 of Notification No. 2/2017 for printed books cannot be claimed as supply does not qualify as independent supply of books - Printed study materials and resources as part of composite supply attract GST rate applicable to principal supply which is commercial training and coaching services. Supply therefore not eligible for exemption under notification provisions relating to books - GST on Foreign Exchange Fluctuations - Forex Gain or Loss - Whether Constitutes Consideration for Supply - Foreign exchange fluctuations arising on course registration and examination fees paid to foreign professional bodies - Whether foreign exchange differential retained by applicant constitutes consideration for supply and attracts GST - HELD - Differential amount arising on foreign exchange fluctuations in respect of course registration fees, examination fees, subscription fees and other charges payable to foreign professional bodies and retained by applicant does not constitute consideration for any taxable supply made by applicant - Section 2(102) of CGST Act provides that services include activity relating to conversion of money only if separate consideration charged for such activity. Foreign exchange movement can result in gain or loss and therefore cannot represent separate consideration. Occasional gain from forex fluctuations even if retained by applicant falls outside GST framework as no certain nexus exists between consideration and services rendered by applicant - Foreign exchange gain or loss is recognized in accounting records in accordance with accounting standards and neither passed on to nor recovered from students. Therefore differential amount arising on forex fluctuations not required to be included in taxable value of supply. Since no corresponding taxable supply exists for said amount, question of applicable SAC does not arise - GST on Redemption of Training Fees from Universities - Taxability of Support Services to Educational Institutions - Redemption of Training Fees - Applicant acted as training partner for university programmes providing training, coaching, academic support and infrastructure, receiving consideration as percentage of tuition fees collected - Whether support services provided to universities attract GST and applicable rate - HELD - Amounts received from universities as consideration for education and training activities carried out by applicant constitute consideration for taxable supply under Heading 9992 and are liable to GST at 18% in absence of applicable exemption - Applicant does not qualify as educational institution and therefore services provided to universities cannot claim exemption under Serial No. 66(a) of Notification No. 12/2017 which applies only to services provided by educational institutions. Services provided do not fall within categories specified under Serial No. 66(b) relating to transportation, catering, security, cleaning, admission or examination services to educational institutions -The activities of applicant in providing support services to universities are not covered under any exemption category. Redemption of training fees received from universities represents consideration for support services provided whic [Read less]

2026-VIL-163-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Section 2(6) and Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017 - Export of services or Intermediary Service - Educational consultancy services - Applicant, an educational consultants firm, entered into agency agreement with foreign universities to facilitate recruitment and enrollment of students from India in return for commission payable upon actual enrollment and receipt of tuition fees – Applicant contention that services rendered to foreign universities constitute export of services under Section 2(6) of IGST Act and not intermediary services - Whether the services rendered by applicant to overseas universities for enrollment of students qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017 - HELD - The applicant performs no independent supply on own account as it neither offers educational courses nor undertakes any part of teaching or academic instruction. The applicant is acting as an agent of the university in India and merely arranging and facilitating admission process between the university and prospective students, thereby constituting intermediary services as defined in Section 2(13) of IGST Act. - The place of supply for intermediary services is determined by the applicable statutory provisions which changed effective 30.03.2026 - For the period up to 29.03.2026, the place of supply was the location of supplier (India) as per clause (b) of Section 13(8) of IGST Act, resulting in services not qualifying as export of services under Section 2(6). Post omission of clause (b) of Section 13(8) effective 30.03.2026, the place of supply is governed by Section 13(2) and determined as location of recipient (outside India), whereby services thereafter qualify as export of services - Services do not qualify as export of services for the period up to 29.03.2026, whereas from 30.03.2026 onwards, the services qualify as export of services – Ordered accordingly - Definition of intermediary - Whether the services are to be classified as intermediary services within the meaning of Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017 - HELD - The services constitute intermediary services within the meaning of Section 2(13) of IGST Act. The arrangement involves three parties (university, applicant, prospective students) and two distinct supplies in accordance with the structure prescribed in CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 for intermediary arrangements - The main supply is educational services by the university to students, and the applicant's function is to arrange and facilitate such main supply between the two principals - The applicant is acting as an agent of the university evidenced by the agreement. The applicant's restricted authority as demonstrated by restrictions on collecting fees directly and incurring obligations without prior consent signifies that applicant acts under control of the principal and not on its own account - The applicant's remuneration is contingent upon successful completion of enrollment and continuation of student enrollment with the university, establishing no direct nexus between consideration and claimed recruitment services. The applicant neither offers educational courses nor undertakes teaching, academic instruction or delivery of educational services. The applicant merely facilitates the provision of educational services by the university to prospective students and does not supply the underlying services on its own account, thus satisfying the definition of intermediary under Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017. [Read less]

2026-VIL-168-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST - Rajasthan AAR - Classification of Rubberised Cork Sheet / Agglomerated Cork Sheet manufactured from cork granules - Applicability of concessional rate of 5% under Sl. No. 310 of Schedule-I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 - Whether the product is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 45041010, is covered under Sl. No. 310 of Schedule-I of the notification, attracts GST at 5% - HELD - Classification is to be determined in accordance with the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with the General Rules for Interpretation, under which the primacy of the terms of the heading is absolute and recourse to succeeding Rules arises only where the terms of the heading and relative Notes leave the matter unresolved - Heading 4504 reads "Agglomerated cork (with or without a binding substance) and articles of agglomerated cork", prescribes no threshold for the proportion the binding substance may bear to the cork and names no particular class of binder to the exclusion of others - What is being agglomerated is the cork, and the polymer, chemicals and curatives and processing oil together constitute the binder system by which that agglomeration is effected - The word "natural" appears in headings 4501 to 4503 but is noticeably absent from heading 4504, since agglomerated cork is by definition cork which has been crushed, granulated or ground and thereafter reconstituted and cannot be natural cork; the notification contains separate entries for natural cork and for agglomerated cork at the same rate, and to read the entry for agglomerated cork as available only for natural cork would render it futile - The products, being sheets, fall under tariff item 4504 10 10, though this distinction is of no consequence to the rate since the notification entry specifies the heading 4504 without restriction to any sub-heading or tariff item - The products are classifiable under heading 4504, are covered by Sl. No. 310 of Schedule-I of the notification, and attract 5% GST, in respect of supplies made on or after 22.09.2025, and the benefit of the entry cannot be denied on the ground that the product is not natural cork - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-165-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Exemption on vocational training services under Sl. No. 69 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended by Notification No. 08/2024-Central Tax (Rate) - Applicant, a training body accredited with a Sector Skills Council which is an Awarding Body recognized by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training, provided a vocational training program titled Junior Software Developer aligned with the National Skills Qualification Framework, supported by an approved Qualification Pack Code - Whether the services provided by the Applicant in respect of the said course, conducted in association with the Awarding Body and aligned to the National Skills Qualification Framework, are covered under Sl. No. 69 of the Notification and thereby exempt from GST - HELD - The scope of Sl. No. 69 of the Notification was revised with effect from 10.10.2024 to separately cover services provided by a Training Body accredited with an Awarding Body recognized by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training, in relation to any National Skills Qualification Framework aligned qualification or skill for which the National Council for Vocational Education and Training has approved a qualification package - The exemption thereby extends not only to recognized Awarding Bodies but also to accredited training bodies operating under them - The Applicant, being a training body accredited with the Sector Skills Council, an Awarding Body recognized by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training, and providing training in relation to a National Skills Qualification Framework aligned qualification for which a qualification package has been approved, satisfies the requirements of the said entry - Services provided by the Applicant in respect of the course held covered under item (e)(iii) of Entry No. 69 of the Notification, as amended with effect from 10.10.2024, and exempt from levy of GST – Ordered accordingly - Scope of exemption under Sl. No. 69 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, over course fee collected for a vocational training program - Whether, the training services having been held exempt, such exemption applies to the entire course fee collected from students towards the vocational training program - HELD - The Memorandum of Understanding between the Applicant and the Awarding Body does not place any cap on the fees to be charged by the training partner from students - The entire course fee charged by the training partner for the National Skills Qualification Framework aligned qualification with an approved qualification package qualifies for exemption under the Notification, save that any fee collected from a student which is not collected towards such qualification would not be covered by the exemption - Exemption held applicable to the entire course fee collected towards the National Skills Qualification Framework aligned training program. [Read less]

2026-VIL-125-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

GST - Pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of CGST Act, 2017 - Timing of payment of pre-deposit and deemed date of filing of appeal - Appellant filed appeal in FORM GST APL-05 against Order-in-Appeal upon which a Provisional Acknowledgement was issued by the Registry - Registry issued Defect Notice pointing out non-payment of pre-deposit under Section 112(8) - Appellant contended that since the appeal pertained to rejection of an already-sanctioned refund and did not involve any disputed tax liability, the requirement of pre-deposit is inapplicable - Registry, after hearing, directed the appellant for mandatory payment of 10% ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-160-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Classification of Printing Service as Job Work - Printing Activity on Customer-Supplied Materials - Applicant engaged in printing services on paper and content supplied by customer using printer's own consumables, sought classification under SAC 9988 - Whether activity of printing on customer-supplied paper and content constitutes job work within meaning of Section 2(68) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - Printing activity undertaken on customer-supplied paper and content using printer's own consumables is classifiable under Heading 9988 as manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others. However, characterization as job work within definition of Section 2(68) depends on whether recipient of services is registered person under GST - Job work requires treatment or process on goods belonging to another registered person. Where customer is unregistered person, activity constitutes services by way of treatment or process on goods belonging to another person but not job work as strictly defined – The activity would be considered as Job Work only if the customer/recipient of such services provided by the applicant is registered under GST. In other cases, it would be classified as services by way of any treatment or process on goods belonging to another person – Ordered accordingly - Concessional Rate Applicability for Printing Services - GST Rate for Printing of Goods under Chapters 48 and 49 - Applicant sought confirmation whether printing services on customer-supplied materials qualify for concessional rate of 5% under Entry No. 26 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) when printed goods fall under Chapters 48 or 49 - Whether printing services related to goods under Chapters 48 or 49 are eligible for 5% or standard 18% rate - HELD - Printing services classifiable under Heading 9988 are eligible for concessional rate of 5% only when services fall within specific sub-entries of Entry 26 namely sub-entries (ii)(e), (ii)(f), (v)(a) and (v)(b). Sub-entry (ii)(e) covers job work for printing of newspapers, books including Braille books, journals and periodicals. Sub-entry (ii)(f) covers job work for printing of all goods falling under Chapters 48 or 49 attracting central tax at 2.5% or Nil. Corresponding sub-entries (v)(a) and (v)(b) apply to services by way of treatment or process on goods of unregistered persons. Concessional rate benefit restricted to goods under Chapters 48 or 49 which themselves attract central tax at 2.5% or Nil rate. In all other cases where printing does not fall within specified categories, GST payable at standard rate of 18% under residual sub-entries (iv) and (vii). Applicability of concessional rate depends on actual tariff classification and tax rate of printed output - Printing of Religious Books - Supply of Service or Supply of Goods - Applicant engaged in printing of religious texts and extracts where content provided by customer or sourced from public domain and paper and consumables supplied by printer - Whether printing of religious books with customer-supplied content and printer-supplied materials is supply of goods or service and applicable rate - HELD - Printing of religious texts or extracts where content supplied by customer or sourced from public domain and materials supplied by printer constitutes composite supply of services with principal supply being printing service. Supplies of paper and consumables are ancillary to principal supply of printing service. Applying principles of composite supply under Section 8 read with Sections 2(30) and 2(90) of CGST Act, taxability determined by nature of principal supply - Circular No. 11/11/2017-GST dated 20.10.2017 establishes that where content supplied by publisher or person owning usage rights and printer uses own physical inputs including paper, principal supply is printing service while supply of materials ancillary. Applicant executing customer-specific printing orders rather than independently publishing books on own account. Distinctive factor is whether printer independently publishing and supplying books or merely executing customer-directed printing orders - Activity classifiable as supply of printing service under SAC 9989 taxable at 18% under Entry 27(ii) of Notification 11/2017. Fact that printed material consists of religious books or extracts irrelevant to characterization. Benefit of Nil or concessional rate applicable to printed books cannot extend merely because output in book form or contains religious literature. [Read less]

2026-VIL-158-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Tariff Classification and applicable GST rate on Herbal Extract Product – Nutraceutical Supplement versus Medicament – Applicant manufactured herbal extract product through steam distillation with water-based preparation method – Whether product qualifies as medicament under Chapter 30, nutraceutical under Heading 2106, or aromatic preparation under Chapter 33 of Customs Tariff – HELD – Product marketed as wellness supplement for general health support without specific disease treatment claims does not meet criteria for classification as medicament. The essential character test and common parlance test are decisive in classification matters, not the mere presence of ingredients with therapeutic properties - Medicaments are ordinarily supported by therapeutic claims, dosage discipline and regulatory recognition under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which applicant did not possess. Product appropriately classifiable as nutraceutical or dietary supplement under Heading 2106 reflecting applicant's license from relevant food safety authority and intended use for nutritional supplementation - Classification under Chapter 33 rejected as product lacks aromatic character and is not marketed or used in perfumery, cosmetics or flavouring applications – The product is intended for direct human consumption as a dietary supplement for general wellness and nutritional support. The product is essentially a water based extract of turmeric, containing negligible quantities of turmeric derived constituents and consisting predominantly of water. In trade parlance, such products are understood and marketed as nutraceutical or dietary supplements rather than as pharmaceutical preparations or aromatic extracts. Therefore, considering the composition, manner of presentation, intended use and consumer perception, the essential character of the impugned product is that of a food preparation meant for nutritional or wellness supplementation, which appropriately falls within the scope of Heading 2106 - Price or MRP by itself does not determine classification unless specific value-linked condition in notification applies. Product initially taxable at rate of 18% as per Notification No. 01/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, subsequently reduced to 5% by Notification No. 9/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, effective from 22.09.2025 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-167-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST - Rajasthan AAR - Applicable rate of GST on composite supply of works contract as on 01.06.2022 - Services covered by entry at Sl. No. 3(iii)(c) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for pipeline, conduit or plant for water supply, water treatment or sewerage treatment or disposal – Applicant was awarded works relating to Design, Supply, Construction, Testing, Trial Run, Commissioning and Operation & Maintenance of Faecal Sludge Treatment Plant infrastructure Whether the applicable GST rate on Works Contract Services as on 01.06.2022 was 12% or 18% - HELD - Entry No. 3(iii) of Notification N... [Read more]

2026-VIL-164-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST - Kerala AAR - Taxability of Centage charges received by a Special Purpose Vehicle from Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board for implementation of Government infrastructure projects - Applicant, a funding agency established by the State Government, was appointed as SPV for implementation of projects funded by Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board, executing a Tripartite Agreement between the funding agency, the Applicant and the Administrative Department, the owner of the project - Applicant received Centage charges as percentage-based fees - Whether there is any GST liability on Centage charges received by the Applicant, and if so, the rate applicable - HELD - The activities undertaken by the Applicant are administrative and professional in nature, constituting project management services for construction projects classifiable under the relevant SAC, and fall within the ambit of supply of services - Exemption under Sl. No. 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, requires the service to be a pure service to Government and to relate to a function entrusted to a Panchayat or Municipality under Articles 243G or 243W read with the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules - While the services rendered are pure services, the projects executed, comprising state and coastal highways, tourism corridor roads and similar categories, do not fall within the scope of roads and bridges envisaged for Panchayats and Municipalities under the said Schedules - Exemption under Sl. No. 3 of the Notification held not available - Services rendered by the Applicant in the form of project management and implementation services against Centage charges held classifiable under Heading 9983 and liable to GST at the rate of 18% - Ordered accordingly - Recipient of supply for invoicing - Determination of recipient of supply for the purpose of raising tax invoice on Centage charges - Whether the Special Purpose Vehicle is required to raise invoice in favour of the Administrative Department, the owner of the project, for the services rendered to the Government - HELD – In terms of Section 2(93) the term ‘recipient’ means the person liable to pay the consideration, and the statute contemplates that consideration may be discharged by a person other than the recipient, such that the source of payment is not determinative and the real contractual relationship between the parties governs identification of the recipient - The Tripartite Agreement establishes that the concerned Administrative Department owns the projects and has the power to take material decisions regarding implementation, and is the requisitioning authority receiving the supplies required for execution of the projects - The funding agency was introduced as a conduit for disbursing payment on account of delay in release of funds affecting time-bound implementation, its role being limited to review, monitoring and funding, and it cannot be considered the recipient merely because it discharges the consideration - The Administrative Department, being the owner of the projects and the actual recipient of the services, is liable to pay the consideration within the meaning of the statutory definition of recipient - Applicant held required to raise the tax invoice in favour of the Administrative Department of the Government, being the recipient of the supply of services. [Read less]

2026-VIL-159-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Exemption for Vocational Training Services - NSQF-Aligned Qualification Training - Applicant accredited as training partner with Sector Skill Council recognized by National Council for Vocational Education and Training, providing structured vocational training for repair and maintenance of handheld electronic devices aligned with National Skill Qualification Framework - Whether training services provided by accredited training body for NSQF-aligned qualifications with NCVET-approved qualification package qualify for GST exemption under Entry No. 69 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) - HELD - the appl... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1098-PAT-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Valuation of works contract - Order confirming Service Tax on the gross value of a works contract - Department levied Service Tax on the gross contract value reflected in Form 26AS. The petitioner contended that tax could be levied only on the service component after excluding the value of property in goods transferred, and that liability ought to have been apportioned between the service provider and recipient under Notification No. 30/2012-ST – Whether the demand of service tax without considering Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, the Constitutional limitation under Article 366(29A)(b), and Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax on reverse charge, is sustainable - HELD - After the Constitutional amendment embodied in Article 366(29A), a works contract is a composite contract involving both transfer of property in goods and rendition of services. Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 provides the mechanism for excluding the value of property in goods transferred in execution of the works contract. None of the petitioner's contentions on this count were denied or disputed in the counter affidavit - The impugned order does not disclose any meaningful discussion on the applicability of the valuation Rules, the determination of the service component, or the Constitutional principles governing taxation of works contracts - A quasi-judicial authority is under an obligation to deal with every substantial contention having a bearing on tax liability. Mere reference to submissions is not sufficient; there must be adjudication supported by reasons - The petitioner also disputed the description of its status as a private limited company, asserting it was a partnership firm entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-ST on RCM. Once such a dispute was raised and the applicability of the notification depended on the legal status of the assessee, the adjudicating authority was required to ascertain the factual position and render a clear finding, which was not done - The requirement of recording reasons is a fundamental facet of fair adjudication and not an empty formality. The impugned order does not satisfactorily address the core legal issues raised - The Order-in-Original is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration with a reasoned order to be passed after affording adequate opportunity of hearing, preferably within four months, with no recovery from the petitioner until the fresh order is passed - Writ petition allowed - Service Tax - Maintainability of writ petition - The petitioner challenged an order confirming Service Tax, interest and penalty without first availing the appellate remedy before the CESTAT. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable on this ground - Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bars the writ petition - HELD - The rule regarding alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed restraint and not one of jurisdiction. Where the challenge goes to the very manner in which the adjudicating authority has exercised jurisdiction the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar. This applies where relevant statutory provisions and binding notifications are alleged to have been ignored. It also applies where the order ex facie suffers from non-consideration of material issues having a direct bearing on tax liability - In the present case the petitioner did not merely dispute the quantification of demand. The challenge proceeded on the foundation that the adjudicating authority failed to properly examine the valuation mechanism applicable to works contracts, the effect of Notification No. 30/2012-ST, and the constitutional limitation flowing from Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. The controversy was therefore not confined to arithmetical determination of tax but concerned the very basis on which liability was assessed - The writ petition cannot be rejected solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. [Read less]

2026-VIL-127-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

GST - Jurisdiction of Principal Bench - Transfer of appeal involving issue covered under Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 relating to distribution of credit by Input Service Distributor - Appellant sought transfer of the appeal from the State Bench to the Principal Bench, GSTAT, New Delhi on the ground that one of the issues involved was covered under Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appeal, involving the issue of eligibility of ISD credit under Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017, is required to be heard only by the Principal Bench in terms of clause (c) of the Notification S.O. 4219(E) dated 17.09.2025 - HELD ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-162-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST - Kerala AAR - Classification of Construction Services in respect of villa projects constructed and sold after 01.04.2019 - Residential Villa Projects other than “Ongoing Projects” - Applicant engaged in construction of residential villas in real estate projects commenced after 01.04.2019 - Classification and SAC of construction services supplied to buyers in other than ongoing projects in view of the amendment made in Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 vide Notification No.3/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 29/03/2019 - HELD - Construction of residential villas other than affordable residential apartments by promoter in Residential Real Estate Project which commences on or after 01.04.2019 is appropriately classified under SAC 995411 as general construction services of single dwelling or multi-dwelling or multi-storied residential buildings - Services are classifiable under Entry 3(ia) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 3/2019-CT(Rate). Applicant qualifies as developer-promoter as defined in explanation to Entry 3 for constructing villas which fall within category of residential apartments other than affordable residential apartments in RREP. Additional modification works and ancillary services provided during project stage prior to completion certificate or first occupation and forming part of original construction agreement should be treated as integral part of construction service and classified under same SAC 995411. Where additional works constitute separate and independent supply not part of original construction, classification shall be determined based on specific nature of such service – Ordered accordingly - Applicable Rate of Tax for Villa Construction Services - Applicable rate of tax for villa construction services under Entry 3(ia) and valuation where supply involves transfer of land - HELD - Supply of construction services relating to residential villas other than affordable residential apartments in RREP taxable under Entry 3(ia) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended at rate of 3.75% CGST and 3.75% SGST subject to conditions prescribed - Where supply involves transfer of property in land or undivided share of land, value of land deemed to be one-third of total amount charged and GST payable on remaining two-thirds of consideration. This valuation provision results in effective GST rate of 5% on total value. Additional modification works and ancillary services forming part of construction of residential villas prior to issuance of completion certificate or first occupation treated as part of same supply and taxable at same rate applicable to principal supply under Entry 3(ia). Where such works constitute separate and independent supply not forming part of construction of residential apartments in RREP, applicable rate determined based on classification of service under notification - Eligibility for Input Tax Credit on Supplies for Villa Construction - Whether input tax credit available for goods and services used in construction under Entry 3(ia) - HELD - Applicant not eligible to avail or utilise ITC of tax paid on inputs and input services used for construction of residential villas in projects other than ongoing projects taxable under Entry 3(ia) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended - Entry 3(ia) prescribes concessional rate of tax subject to condition that credit of input tax charged on goods and services used in supplying construction service shall not be taken. Accordingly, in respect of residential villa projects commencing on or after 01.04.2019, applicant required to discharge tax at applicable rate under Entry 3(ia) without availment of input tax credit - Where additional modification works and ancillary services form part of construction of villas in RREP prior to completion, such services treated as part of same supply taxable under Entry 3(ia) and input tax credit not available. However, where such additional works constitute separate and independent supply not forming part of construction of villas in RREP, eligibility to avail input tax credit determined in accordance with provisions of CGST Act - Utilisation of ITC availed under Protest - Whether ITC retained in electronic credit ledger can be adjusted against tax liability or whether option exists to opt for higher rate with ITC availment - HELD - Applicant not entitled to avail or utilise ITC stated to have been availed under protest in respect of projects other than ongoing projects taxable under Entry 3(ia) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended - Entry 3(ia) prescribes applicable rate subject to condition that input tax credit on goods and services used shall not be taken and tax payable required to be discharged in cash through electronic cash ledger only. Applicant cannot utilise balance ITC lying in electronic credit ledger for discharging output tax liability at rate prescribed under Entry 3(ia) for residential villa projects commencing on or after 01.04.2019 - Applicant has no option to choose higher rate of tax for purpose of utilizing balance ITC available in electronic credit ledger. Option to continue under earlier rate structure with ITC was available only for eligible ongoing projects not for projects commencing after 01.04.2019. Any ITC wrongly availed in respect of projects commencing after 01.04.2019 even if not utilised shall be reversed or paid back in accordance with CGST Act provisions. Transitional mechanism under Notification 03/2019 relevant only for ongoing projects transitioning to revised rate structure. [Read less]

2026-VIL-166-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Kerala AAR - Classification of "Nata De Coco (Coconut Jelly)" and applicable rate of tax - Applicant manufactured Nata De Coco from coconut water and coconut milk - Whether the product is classifiable under HSN Code 20079990 and the applicable rate of GST thereon - HELD - Heading 2007 covers jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut puree and fruit or nut pastes obtained by cooking, being preparations where fruit juice or pulp is boiled or concentrated with sugar until it sets on cooling, the fruit or nut remaining the essential ingredient giving the product its essential character - Nata De Coco is not obtained by boiling or concentrating coconut juice or pulp so as to form a jelly on cooling, but results from microbial fermentation of coconut water and milk used only as a substrate, followed by further processing, and is a distinct fermented edible preparation not marketed or consumed as a jam, marmalade, puree or paste - Product accordingly does not satisfy the description under Heading 2007 - Heading 2008, covering fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants otherwise prepared or preserved while retaining their essential plant character, is also inapplicable since coconut water and milk are used only as substrate for fermentation and the finished product does not retain the essential character of coconut as such - No other specific heading being applicable, the product falls under the residual Heading 2106 covering food preparations not elsewhere specified or included, and more specifically under Tariff Item 21069099 - Among the entries under Heading 2106, the product does not meet the specific descriptions under other entries, and would fall either under the entry for ready-to-eat packaged food, if supplied as such, or the residual entry for goods not specified elsewhere, both attracting the same rate for the relevant period - Product held classifiable under Heading 2106, Tariff Item 21069099, and not under Heading 2007 – GST is payable at 18% for the period from 01.07.2017 to 21.09.2025, and at 5% with effect from 22.09.2025 as Nata De Coco is appropriately classifiable under Sl. No. 145 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Central Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

More Judgements Home More Judgements

2026-VIL-130-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-129-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1658-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1661-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1660-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1664-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1665-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-134-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-124-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1656-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-119-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1663-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1100-SIK | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1659-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-120-GSTAT-RNC | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1654-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1650-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-111-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1657-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1639-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1641-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1642-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1651-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1652-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1655-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-115-GSTAT-CHD | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-117-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1649-CESTAT-MUM-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1648-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1647-CESTAT-MUM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1646-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1644-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1645-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-108-GSTAT-VRN | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-169-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-128-GSTAT-CTT | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1640-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1095-J&K-CE | High Court CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1653-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1643-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-113-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-112-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1091-PAT | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1096-DEL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1093-MAD | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-110-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1087-ORI | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-121-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1097-GUJ | High Court VAT

2026-VIL-114-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1099-DEL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-109-GSTAT-LCK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-133-GSTAT-CMT | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-131-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-118-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1090-MAD-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1662-CESTAT-ALH-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-122-GSTAT-ERN | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1092-KAR | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1089-KAR | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-126-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1094-KAR | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-132-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-123-GSTAT-GZB | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1086-GAU | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-161-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-163-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-168-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-165-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-125-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-160-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-158-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-167-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-164-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-159-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-1098-PAT-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-127-GSTAT-KOL | Tribunal SGST

More Judgements

Home

More Judgements