More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST - Availment of Ineligible Input Tax Credit - Suppression of Facts under Section 74 - Ineligible self-assessed ITC and contravention of Sections 16(2) and 42(1) - Department issued a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 proposing recovery of excess input tax credit as alleged suppression of facts - Whether the mere act of the taxpayer in taking ineligible self-assessed input tax credit in their electronic credit ledger in terms of Section 42(1) of the CGST Act would amount to suppression of facts before the Department, which would fall within the scope of Section 74(1) of the CGST Act - HELD - Section 74(1) of the CGST Act can be invoked only in cases where there is fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the taxpayer. The mere act of taking input tax credit without verifying the eligibility thereof, in the absence of any statutory presumption or evidence to establish that the taxpayer knew that a particular input tax credit was not eligible, will not amount to suppression of facts. Every act of transgression of Section 16(2) or Section 42(1) of the CGST Act cannot be termed as a violation inviting proceedings under Section 74 unless clear and categorical evidence has been adduced to the effect that the said transgression was the result of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax - Mere contravention of Section 16(2) and Section 42(1) of the Act cannot be considered the reason for fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Department failed to adduce any material evidence of fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts in the show-cause notice as required by Board Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dtd. 13.12.2023 - The taxpayer had already disclosed the invoice-wise reconciliation explaining the alleged input tax credit difference through GSTR-9C annual return filings and uploaded the required documents on the GST portal, thereby disclosing the facts - In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the mere act of the taxpayer in taking ineligible self-assessed input tax credit would not amount to suppression of facts under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act - The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeals are allowed - GST - Suppression of Facts under Section 74 - Failure to Reply to Audit Enquiry and Final Audit Report - Natural Justice and Procedural Regularity - Whether failure to furnish information and reply to audit enquiry and final audit report by the taxpayer would amount to suppression of facts in terms of Section 74 of the CGST Act and whether grounds of appeal can be raised at the appellate stage which were not part of the original show-cause notice - HELD - Raising additional grounds at the appellate stage which are not found in the show-cause notice is against the fundamental principles of natural justice and the appellate authority ought to have rejected such grounds. The expression suppression under Explanation 2 to Section 74 means non-declaration of facts or information which a taxable person is required to declare in the return, statement, report or any other document furnished under the Act or rules, or failure to furnish any information on being asked for in writing by the proper officer. However, such suppression must be willful and with intent to evade tax. Mere failure to reply to the audit enquiry and final audit report cannot amount to suppression of facts when the underlying data and reconciliation information had already been disclosed through statutory filings on the GST portal in GSTR-9C returns - Failure to provide information in response to an audit observation does not constitute suppression under Section 74 where all relevant facts were already available on the common portal. No statutory obligation exists for a taxpayer to furnish written replies to the final audit report - The order-in-appeal violated natural justice by introducing new grounds not part of the original notice and did not discuss or dislodge the factual findings of the adjudicating authority that the reconciliation had been disclosed through GSTR-9C annual return filings - In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, mere failure to reply to the audit enquiry and final audit report by the taxpayer would not amount to suppression of facts in terms of Section 74 of the CGST Act. The order-in-appeal suffered from non-application of mind and violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-60-GSTAT-TVP | Tribunal SGST

GST - Input Tax Credit - Eligibility under Section 16(5) - Belated filing of GSTR-3B Returns - Notwithstanding the disallowance under Section 16(4) for belated filing of returns, the appellant contended that the newly inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST/KGST Act, made effective from 1-7-2017, provides relief for taxpayers who file all GST returns up to 30-11-2021 for the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, and since the appellant had filed the returns on 31-7-2018 and 16-6-2019, well before the prescribed deadline, the denial of input tax credit was unsustainable - Whether the deceased appellant is eligible for input tax credit having regard to Section 16(5) of the CGST/KGST Act inserted vide Section 118 of the Finance Act, 2024 - HELD - Section 16(5) was inserted in the CGST/KGST Act vide Section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, with effect from 1st day of July, 2017, providing that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), in respect of an invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services pertaining to the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the registered person shall be entitled to take input tax credit in any return filed up to the thirtieth day of November, 2021 - The appellant filed all GST returns on 31-7-2018 for the period July-2017 to Feb-2017 and on 16-6-2019 for the month of March-2018, well before the prescribed date of 30-11-2021 under Section 16(5). The belatedly filed GST returns pertain to the period 2017-18, which is covered under the newly inserted Section 16(5) - The appellant, whether or not deceased, is eligible to the input tax credit claimed in the respective GST returns during the period 2017-18. The Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST dated 15-10-2024 clarifies that the adjudicating and appellate authorities should take cognizance of the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) while passing orders - The impugned order-in-appeal denying the input tax credit is set aside and the appeal is allowed - GST - Recover the tax demand from the deceased appellant - Procedure under Section 93(1)(b) - Liability of Legal Representative on death of Taxpayer - Discontinued Business - Post-death proceedings - The appellant proprietor had died on 5-9-2024 after the impugned order-in-appeal was passed on 8-12-2022, and the legal heir filed the present appeal on 26-3-2026 claiming to be the legal representative. The respondent sought to recover the tax demand from the deceased appellant without issuing any notice to the legal heir – Whether proceedings could be validly continued against the deceased proprietor without fresh proceedings against the legal representative - HELD - Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act provides that if the business carried on by the person is discontinued, whether before or after death, the legal representative shall be liable to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge, the tax, interest or penalty due from such person. Assessment proceedings cannot validly continue against a deceased proprietor; the required statutory liability attaches to the legal representative, and proceedings must be initiated against the appropriate legal representative after notice and hearing - Where adjudication fails to examine whether heirs continued the business or whether an estate is available for recovery, the statutory basis for liability remains unaddressed - Recovery against the legal heir is permissible in a discontinued business only to the extent confined to the inherited estate. The respondent has no legal basis to recover any dues from the deceased appellant in the absence of any process under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act - The impugned order is set aside as unsustainable in the absence of any action by the respondent under Section 93(1)(b) and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1475-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Intellectual Property Right Service - Permanent Transfer of Know-How and Intangible Assets - Definition of IPR under Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant, a manufacturing company engaged in rubber-industry equipment, entered into an Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement with a foreign entity for sale of plant and equipment, raw material, customer records, know-how, supplier records, domain names and brand with specified allocation of purchase price. The Appellant treated a portion of the consideration as referable to intangible assets outside the scope of service tax. The Revenue sought to tax a portion of the consideration as Intellectual Property Right Service under Sections 65(55a) and 65(55b) of the Finance Act, 1994, contending that the know-how transfer was temporary and the continuing royalty payments for five years negated permanency - Whether know-how constitutes an intellectual property right recognised under any law in force in India, whether the transaction constitutes a permanent or temporary transfer of intellectual property right, and whether the demand of service tax with penalties is sustainable - HELD - Know-how is not an intellectual property right recognised under any law in force in India within the meaning of Section 65(55a) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it is neither registrable nor recognised as a distinct species of intellectual property under any statute presently in force in India. Such position is well settled by consistent decisions of the Tribunal including Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., and Munjal Showa Ltd., affirmed by the Supreme Court. Permanent transfer of intellectual property right does not amount to rendering of service as per CBIC Circular 80/10/2004-ST. On a conjoint reading of the entire agreement including recitals and clauses, it is evident that the transaction constituted an absolute and permanent transfer of assets free and clear of encumbrances with title, property and risk passing to the appellant on completion. The restraint on the transferor from using or disclosing the know-how post-completion is characteristic of an absolute transfer and wholly inconsistent with any residual right retained. The know-how royalty for five years is properly understood as deferred consideration for a sale completed on the completion date, not a continuing licence. The mode and timing of payment of consideration does not qualify the nature of the transfer itself. The demand of service tax is not sustainable and is set aside entirely. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 are equally unsustainable as they are premised on a non-existent obligation to register and the appellant's bona fide and arguable interpretation of law coupled with its correspondence with the department since 2010-11 constitute reasonable cause under Section 80 warranting waiver of penalties - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1477-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Reverse Charge Mechanism - Taxability of Services Provided by Government - Point of Taxable Event - Natural Resource Extraction - Appellant is engaged in exploration and production of Coal Bed Methane pursuant to contract dated 26.07.2002 executed with Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Under said contract, appellant is required to pay Royalty to Government of a State and Production Level Payment to Government of India. Department issued Show Cause Notice alleging that Royalty and Production Level Payment paid during period 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017 were liable to service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Appellant filed detailed reply contesting proposed demand. Principal Commissioner confirmed demand along with applicable interest and penalties - Whether appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Royalty and Production Level Payment paid to Government for natural resource extraction when agreement for mining was entered prior to 01.04.2016 - HELD - Prior to 01.04.2016, all services provided by Government or local authority were covered under negative list of services and accordingly not subjected to service tax. With effect from 01.04.2016, section 66D of Finance Act was amended and any service provided by Government to a business entity was excluded from negative list and became chargeable to service tax. For purposes of levying service tax, taxable event is construed as time when service is provided or agreed to be provided. To determine whether levy of service tax is applicable on particular activity, it is necessary to determine point of time when such activity is provided or agreed to be provided. For assignment of right to use natural resource or quarry or mining right, if agreement between parties was executed prior to 01.04.2016, services were received prior to 01.04.2016 when such services from Government were not subject to tax. Since the agreement for natural resource extraction was executed on 26.07.2002, which was prior to 01.04.2016, appellant would not be liable to pay service tax on payments made after 01.04.2016. Point of Taxation Rules deal with date on which payment of service tax has to be made and do not determine whether service is taxable or not, hence such rules would not be applicable to determine taxability of service received prior to 01.04.2016 - Impugned order is not sustainable in law and is set aside - Appeal is allowed with consequential relief [Read less]

2026-VIL-1476-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Commission Agent Services - Collective Investment Scheme - Appellants were commission agents for a company operating holiday options schemes with fixed tenure, engaged in promotion and marketing of holiday options and collection of advance payments. The Revenue sought to levy service tax on the commission received by the appellants as Business Auxiliary Services under Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, contending that the services provided by the appellants as commission agents in promotion and marketing of holiday options fell within the taxable category of BAS. The Appellate Authority confirmed the demand of service tax and imposed penalties for contravention of various statutory provisions including failure to register, failure to file returns, and suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax payment - Whether the appellants were liable to pay service tax on their commission receipts and whether the demand and penalties are sustainable in light of the finding by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that the scheme constituted a collective investment scheme - HELD - The scheme operated by the company was examined by SEBI which held that the scheme was a collective investment scheme in terms of Section 11AA (1) and (2) of SEBI Act and the company had not obtained registration under Section 12(B) of SEBI Collective Investment Scheme Regulation. Since the scheme is an investment scheme and not a taxable service scheme, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax on the services availed by them from the company. The classification of the commission agents' services under the Business Auxiliary Services category and the demand of service tax thereupon are not sustainable in light of the SEBI's determination that the underlying scheme was an investment scheme falling outside the scope of taxable services. The demand of service tax and the penalties imposed on the appellants are set aside in entirety. The appellants are entitled to refund of the amount already paid by them - The appeals are allowed with consequential relief as per law [Read less]

2026-VIL-915-KER | High Court SGST

GST - Refund of Input Tax Credit - Transitional Credit from erstwhile VAT Regime - Inclusion in Refund Claim – Petitioner filed GST TRAN-1 form for transitioning excess input tax credit from its VAT ledger to the Electronic Credit Ledger. Transitional credit was credited to ECL on 27.12.2017. Petitioner filed refund claim for November 2017 including the transitional credit of SGST - Assessing authority rejected on the ground that transitional credit is not a credit earned during the relevant period and does not qualify as Net ITC under Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether transitional credit carried forward from erstwhile VAT regime to Electronic Credit Ledger can be included in refund claim and whether a writ petition can be entertained after expiry of statutory period for filing an appeal - HELD - As per Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, the unutilised input tax credit in erstwhile regime as on 30.06.2017 shall be available as opening balance as on 01.07.2017 in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The adjudicating authority can allow refund only if it is proved that the amount claimed was credited into the Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017 - The petitioner failed to produce satisfactory material to prove the credit balance was as on 01.07.2017, hence no reason to interfere with the order. The jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not so wide as to resurrect a cause of action which has become unenforceable due to law of limitation. If a petitioner has disabled himself from availing statutory remedy by not doing so within prescribed time, he cannot be permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction. A writ petition filed after expiry of the period prescribed for filing statutory appeal cannot be entertained as a matter of course. The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium applies when issue is finally decided by competent forum and attained finality - The writ petition is dismissed for being belated and the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim is upheld - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1469-CESTAT-CHD-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Admissibility of credit on inputs procured from units availing area-based exemption - Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Notification No. 01/2010 dated 06.02.2010 - Period prior to amendment effective 20.01.2014 - Appellant manufacturer availed CENVAT credit on inputs procured from units situated in Jammu and Kashmir which were availing area-based exemption under Notification 01/2010, during the period 01.08.2012 to 19.01.2014 - Credit was disallowed by lower authorities on the ground that such credit was not admissible prior to the amendment in Rule 12 effective 20.01.2014 - Whether CENVAT credi... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1471-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Refund of excess excise duty - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Turnover discount and cash discount - Whether refund of excess excise duty paid on account of cash and turnover discount agreed upon in advance but quantified subsequently is barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment – HELD - The Appellant issued cum-duty credit notes to the buyers and dealers, thereby refunding the excess duty received on account of various discounts offered. The duty incidence was borne by the Appellant and not passed on to the dealers or ultimate consumers. Certificates issued by a chartered accountant and dealers confir... [Read more]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST - Section 16(2) of CGST Act, 2017 - Refund of Accumulated Input Tax Credit on export of goods - Validity of Supply Chain in the absence of Toll Plaza Movement receipts – Cancelled second-level supplier in Bill-to-Ship-to Model - Respondent claimed refund of accumulated ITC. Adjudicating Authority rejected refund claiming discrepancies in inward supply chain including non-crossing of vehicles through toll gates in declared dispatch State, procurement of goods from second-level suppliers with cancelled registrations, and possible illegal transactions in regulated petroleum commodity – Appellate Authority allowed refund and set aside adjudication order - Revenue preferred appeals before GSTAT - Whether toll plaza receipts are mandatory for proving physical movement of goods and whether ITC can be denied for supply chain deficiencies and procedural discrepancies - HELD – The Toll plaza receipts are not mandatory requirement under GST law for proving actual physical movement of goods and transportation. Section 16 of CGST Act only prescribes receipt of goods, valid tax invoice, E-way Bill and payment of tax as conditions for ITC eligibility. Where respondent has produced valid transportation documents including E-way Bills, bilty copies, tax invoices, shipping bills, Export General Manifest, transporter certificates etc, toll plaza data alone cannot override substantive documentary evidence of actual supply and movement – Further, there is no provision in the GST law that the goods should necessarily start from the registered place of the supplier. The supplier shall supply the goods as per the instructions of the receiver/ exporter to the place of export in Bill-To-Ship-To Model - The respondent has complied all the conditions under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 and eligible to ITC – The Revenue appeals are dismissed - Validity of denial of ITC on ground of cancellation of GST registration of the second line of suppliers – HELD - The ITC cannot be denied based on cancellation of registrations of second-level suppliers when direct supplier's registration is active and valid - The actual supplier having valid registration and still exists in the GST portal. There is no connection between the respondent and the second line of suppliers. The respondent is not liable for any kind of irregularity committed by the second-level suppliers - Raising of additional grounds first time before the Tribunal – HELD - Merely on the basis of information given before the Appellate stage and without any prayer for additional evidence cannot be allowed. The Rule 45(1) of GSTAT (Procedure) Rules 2025 and Rule 112(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 bar the additional evidence to be recorded except in exceptional circumstances – The new grounds and allegations raised by Revenue for first time before GSTAT stage including licensing requirements for bitumen, investigation by DGGI, and allegations of similar modus operandi are additional evidence barred under Rule 45(1) of GSTAT Procedure Rules 2025 and Rule 112(1) of CGST Rules 2017 - Respondent has complied with all conditions under Section 16(2) of CGST Act for ITC eligibility. [Read less]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST – Transportation of goods without E-way Bill, Subsequent generation and production of E-way Bill - Intention to Evade Tax - Goods were accompanied by tax invoice and other documents. E-way Bill was subsequently generated and produced during submission of reply before seizing officer. Proper Officer imposed tax and penalty confirming violation of Rule 138(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Appellate Authority allowed appeal on ground that E-way Bill was subsequently produced and no discrepancy existed in accompanying documents - Whether absence of E-way Bill at time of transportation can be cured by subsequent generation an... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1473-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refundability of service tax paid on advance received for project agreement terminated before rendering of services - Appellant entered into contract with NTPC Limited for development and operation of coal project in Jharkhand and received contractual advance secured by bank guarantee; the contract was terminated prior to commencement of services and entire advance was recovered by NTPC through encashment of the bank guarantee - Whether service tax paid on such advance is refundable and whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - As the appellant was... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1472-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Cenvat Credit - Eligibility of ancillary input services such as rent-a-cab, outdoor catering, event management, cleaning and photography services - Whether cenvat credit can be denied on the ground of lack of nexus between the input services and the output services - HELD - Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground of lack of nexus with the output services. The Tribunal has been consistently holding in a number of cases that services such as rent-a-cab service, outdoor catering service, event management service, cleaning service and photography service are input services on which cenvat credit can be avail... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1468-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of Brass Scrap and determination of country of origin - Customs Tariff Headings 74040022 and 98060000 - Notification No. 05/2019-Customs dated 16.02.2019 - Bill of Entry for brass scrap declared as originating from UAE when actual country of origin was Pakistan - Whether the country of origin of goods imported under the disputed Bills of Entry was UAE or Pakistan and whether goods should be classified under correct tariff item based on actual country of origin – HELD - The country of origin of the goods has been established to be Pakistan and not UAE as declared by the Appellant. Container number... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1470-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of imported aluminum hollow profiles and availability of concessional duty notification - Customs Tariff Items 76042100 and 76169990 - Appellant manufacturer of Solar Photovoltaic Modules classifiable under HSN 8541 imported aluminum hollow profiles declared under CTI 76042100 but described in commercial invoices as aluminum solar frames - Appellant availed benefit of Serial No. 39 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus for goods covered by Serial No. 23 thereof – The goods were cleared under continuity bonds and end-use certificates were issued by competent GST authorities; Revenue auditor proposed reclassification under CTH 76169990 and raised demand for differential duty. - Whether the imported aluminum hollow profiles retain the character of profiles classifiable under CTI 76042100 or have been transformed into finished articles classifiable under CTH 76169990, and whether the Appellant is entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus notwithstanding the intended use of the goods – HELD - The imported goods are aluminum extrusions or profiles of uniform cross-section that have not been converted into finished, ready-to-use frames having the essential character of articles which would necessitate classification under Heading 7616. The goods continue to fall under Customs Tariff Item 76042100 under Heading 7604 which specifically covers aluminum bars, rods and profiles. Heading 7616 is a residual heading covering other articles of aluminum not more specifically covered elsewhere and cannot be invoked merely because goods are described in invoices as solar frames or are intended for use as solar panel frames. Rule 3 of the General Rules of Interpretation mandates that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. The determination of classification should be based on the actual character and description of the goods as imported, not their intended use - The exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus is available if goods are intended to be used in the manufacture of goods listed in the Notification. The exemption cannot be denied on the basis of possible use of the imported goods for multiple purposes - The end-use certificates issued by the jurisdictional GST authorities establish that the goods were intended for use in manufacture of Solar Photovoltaic Modules and the Revenue cannot disbelieve the certificates issued by other wings of its own department without adducing specific reasons. The exemption was admissible during the currency of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus for bills of entry filed on or before 31.03.2022 - The imported goods are correctly classifiable under CTI 76042100. The Appellant is eligible for the exemption as per Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 01.03.2005 for the bills of entry filed before 01.04.2022 – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GST – Levy of Penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act on transit of goods without E-way Bill - Procedural Lapse – The vehicle carrying goods covered by genuine tax invoices was intercepted without E-way Bill. E-way Bill was generated nine minutes after interception and immediately produced before authority. Proper Officer imposed penalty under Section 129(3) on ground of movement of goods without E-way Bill - Whether penalty under Section 129(3) can be imposed for procedural lapse in generating E-way Bill when E-way Bill is generated immediately after interception in absence of any material indicating tax evasion ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-83-SC | Supreme Court SGST

2026-VIL-1465-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Denial of Cenvat Credit on ground of supplier fraud - Appellant manufacturer of non-alloy steel ingots availed Cenvat Credit on input scrap purchased from vendor under 34 invoices and accounted for in RG 23A Part I records, bank statements and ledger accounts - Revenue initiated action alleging that vendor had fraudulently issued paper invoices without supplying material and had defrauded revenue by over three crores. Revenue denied Cenvat Credit on ground that goods were not received - Whether Cenvat Credit can be denied to recipient-manufacturer merely on ground that supplier has issued fake invoices -... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1464-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Cenvat Credit on Input Service used for setting up Manufacturing Facility - Eligibility of services used for setting up factory after omission of phrase setting up from Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 effective from 01.04.2011 - Appellant engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods availed service tax credit on various services for setting up of new plant. Revenue disallowed Cenvat Credit contending that as per definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, credit on input services used for setting up of factory is not admissible after amendment effective 01.04.2011 - Whethe... [Read more]

2026-VIL-82-SC-ST | Supreme Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Taxability of Referral Charges under Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant automobile dealer obtained referral charges from banks and insurance company for customer loans and insurance policies through referral arrangement with appellant's dealers and service centres. Department Show Cause Notice contending referral charges are taxable as BAS under Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act 1994 and assessee had suppressed income - Whether referral charges received by automobile dealer for referring customers to banks and insurance companies for availing loans and insurance policies constitute taxable BAS - HELD ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-913-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Concessional Import for Petroleum Operations, FTWZ Warehousing - Re-import Exemption - Notification 45/2017-Customs – Petitioner-Sub-contractor engaged in petroleum operations imported specialized equipment under concessional duty regime at nil BCD and 12% IGST under Notification 50/2017-Customs against Essentiality Certificate issued by contractor. Upon completion of contract, proposed to move equipment to FTWZ for temporary warehousing pending identification of fresh contract. Subsequently proposed to clear equipment from FTWZ to DTA against fresh Essentiality Certificate and claim dual exemption under concessional rates under NN-50 and residuary exemption under Serial No. 5 of NN-45 as re-imported goods - Whether equipment warehoused in FTWZ pending fresh contract constitutes re-imported goods eligible for exemption under Serial No. 5 of Notification 45/2017 and whether dual exemption can be claimed under NN-50 and NN-45 for same movement - HELD – The FTWZ movement does not constitute genuine export contemplated by re-import exemption scheme. Concessional import under NN-50 is conditional on fulfillment of conditions including export upon completion of specified contract to specific contractor. Original Essentiality Certificate creates closed transaction requiring export and constitutes condition attached to initial import not capable of being converted into procedural formality through FTWZ arrangement – The NN-50 itself provides express mechanism under Condition 48(c) for transfer of equipment to other eligible petroleum operations without need for export-reimport cycle - Statutory fictions under SEZ Act cannot be extended beyond purpose for which enacted to override independent conditions of NN-50 or manufacture exemption under NN-45. Equipment moves as intervening warehousing arrangement between two domestic contractual deployments not as export followed by genuine re-import - Substantive reality shows equipment remains within India continuously available to appellant for domestic use triggered only by fresh domestic contract and fresh Essentiality Certificate. Permitting such arrangement would allow indefinite tax-neutral cycles through successive domestic contracts defeating legislative intent. Re-import requires not merely identity of goods but requisite continuity between export and return with return bearing character of restoration or reversal of outward movement. Equipment cannot simultaneously bear two inconsistent legal identities namely import for NN-50 purposes and re-import for NN-45 purposes - Subsequent transaction arising from new Essentiality Certificate for different contractual engagement is entirely distinct self-contained transaction not connected to first transaction sufficiently to constitute re-import – The movement of equipment constitutes fresh import not re-import under NN-45. Dual exemption under NN-50 and NN-45 cannot be claimed for same movement – The AAR Orders are upheld and the appeals are dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1466-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of Laptop LCD Panels - CTH 8473 vs CTH 8524 - Appellant importer imported laptop LCD panels (LED backlight) claiming classification under CTH 84733099 attracting nil Basic Customs Duty. Department held goods are flat panel display modules classifiable under CTH 85241100 attracting 15% BCD - Appellant submitted goods have no video-converting components and are specifically designed for laptop use. Chartered Engineer report indicated goods are LED displays - Whether laptop LCD panels without video-converting components are classifiable under CTH 8473 as parts of data processing machines or under CTH 8524 as flat panel display modules - HELD - Classification of imported goods must be based on objective characteristics and identity of goods at time of import and not on eventual end use - Chapter Note 7 of Chapter 85 provides that flat panel display modules designed to be incorporated into articles of other headings shall be classified under CTH 8524 and such heading shall take precedence over any other heading provided the display modules are not equipped with components for converting video signals. Once goods satisfy the specific description of flat panel display modules they must be classified under the specific heading rather than under general heading of parts and accessories - The appellant's own statement and letter confirm that imported goods are not equipped with components for converting video signals like scalar IC, decoder IC or application processor. Goods retain independent identity as flat panel display module. End use with computer cannot be criteria for classification when goods are not integrated and presented separately - General Rule 1 stands satisfied in favour of CTH 8524. Flat panel display modules whether LCD or LED are classifiable under CTH 8524 which attracts 15% BCD. Differential duty of customs has been correctly demanded and confirmed – The demand for differential duty is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-916-ALH | High Court VAT

Sales Tax - Distinction between Lease and Sale of Goods - Agreements for Extraction of Forest Products - Nature of Royalty - Petitioner, a paper manufacturing company, entered into agreements with the State Forest Department for extraction of pine and eucalyptus wood against payment of royalty. The petitioner contended that the agreements constituted a lease of immovable property and not a sale of goods, and therefore no sales tax was exigible on the royalty paid. The petitioner further contended that the Forest Department, not being a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act, could not collect or realise sales tax. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Titaghur Paper Mills to support its contention - Whether the agreements in question constitute a sale and purchase of goods exigible to sales tax, and whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills supports the petitioner's contention - HELD - The agreements dated 17.03.1967 and 01.10.1974 are in pith and substance agreements for the sale and purchase of wood where the standing trees had to be severed and removed by the buyer as per the manner and conditions prescribed in the agreements. The term royalty used in the agreements is referable to the sale consideration at the rate mentioned in consideration of the wood extracted by the petitioner at the point of extraction. The purchase of standing trees agreed to be severed constitutes the taxable event as held in Titaghur Paper Mills. The transaction undertaken by the State for sale and purchase of wood falls within the definition of dealer as contained in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1948, and as per the agreements, the petitioner was required to pay sales tax and other taxes at the rates enforced from time to time. The Titaghur Paper Mills judgment does not support the petitioner as it expressly provides that agreements whereby wood and timber are extracted by severing such wood and timber from trees are exigible to sales and purchase tax. The petitioner's argument regarding non-applicability of sales tax is unsustainable - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-54-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Reversal of Excess Input Tax Credit - Validity of ITC reversal through Form GST DRC-03 - Applicability of Section 128A for waiver of interest and penalty – Respondent-assessee availed excess ITC during financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in comparison between GSTR-3B and auto-generated GSTR-2A - Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. First appellate authority reduced the demand by recognizing reversal of ITC made by Respondent through Form GST DRC-03 – Revenue challenge contending that taxpayer could not establish payment towards discharging ITC reversal liability - Whether reversal of excess ITC through debiting from electronic cash ledger and credit ledger vide DRC-03 is valid - HELD - Reversal of excess ITC by Respondent through Form GST DRC-03 by debiting under CGST and SGST from Electronic Cash Ledger and from Credit ledger is valid and covered the entire disputed amount of excess ITC - The fact that Respondent did not record reasons in column 8 of DRC-03 does not invalidate the reversal as column 8 is not a mandatory field. The Department’s own issuance of DRC-04 acknowledging the receipt of amount debited validates the reversal. The contentions that there was no proof of payment towards discharge of ITC reversal liability and absence of ARN Number in DRC-03 do not gain ground – Further, the contention of the revenue with regard to the absence of ARN Number in DRC-03 is devoid of merit because the appellate authority scrutinized the reconciliation statement and found it correct - However, the First Appellate Authority failed to properly compute the liability of Respondent regarding payment of interest and penalty on the disputed amount – The matter is remanded to FAA to compute interest and penalty with reference to Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 which provides for waiver of interest and penalty relating to demands under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020 - The appeal is partly allowed and remanded for computation of interest and penalty – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-1474-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Refund of Duty - Rate of Interest on Delayed Refund - Commencement of Period for Payment of Interest - Appellant imported Yellow / Green peas and cleared them on payment of customs duty. Subsequently, on coming to know that the goods would be eligible for nil rate of duty under a notification, appellant filed request for re-assessment under Section 149. Appellant also filed a refund claim. After extended proceedings, re-assessment order was passed on 17.09.2025 and refund order was issued on 01.12.2025. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund without interest. The Commissioner of Appeals allowed interest at 6% from 20.02.2019 till date of actual disbursement. Appellant aggrieved by the rate of interest preferred appeal seeking 12% interest. Revenue also preferred appeal contending that interest should be calculated only from 17.09.2025 - Whether the interest on delayed refund of duty should be granted at the rate of 12% or 6%, and from which date should the interest be calculated - HELD - Following the principle laid down in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Union of India and Hamdard Waqf Laboratories Vs Union of India, interest on refund commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the initial refund application. The liability of Revenue to pay interest is not from the date of re-assessment order but from the date when refund claim was initially filed. The chronological history of the case demonstrates that the procrastination is from Revenue's side and the case was settled by Tribunal in favour of the importer which was upheld at Apex Court level - Following the decision of Calcutta High Court in Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), interest at the rate of 12% per annum is payable on refunded amount in absence of any statutory provision fixing lower rate of interest for refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication - Appellant is entitled to interest at 12% from 20.02.2019 till date of refund - Appeal filed by importer is allowed and appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-911-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals - Appellants imported goods and customs duty was re-determined by adjudication order. Appellants filed appeals before CESTAT with delay of 968 days. They sought condonation of delay claiming they were never served order at their registered address and came to know of it only when their bank accounts were frozen - Whether prolonged delay of 968 days can be condoned in absence of satisfactory explanation considering appellants' prior knowledge of adjudication proceedings, absence of any enquiry for three years regarding outcome, electronic communication to counsel and failure ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1467-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Provisional Assessment and Finalization - Mis-declaration of Classification - Appellants exported parboiled rice claiming classification under CTH 10063010 with nil duty. Provisional clearance was allowed upon execution of bonds under Section 18 of Customs Act 1962. Test reports indicated characteristics of non-parboiled rice classifiable under CTH 10063090 - Department issued Notice under Section 28 demanding duty at 20% along with interest, fine and penalty alleging deliberate mis-declaration - Whether Show Cause Notice can be issued and demand recovered under Section 28 when assessment remains provisional and has not been finalized within statutory two-month period from date of receipt of test reports - HELD - Provisional assessment is evident from explicit language of bonds executed by Appellants under Section 18 whereby Appellants undertook to pay duty finally assessed on receipt of test reports. Assessment is mandatorily required to be finalized in accordance with Customs Finalization of Provisional Assessment Regulations 2018 within two months from date of receipt of test reports – SCN issued under Section 28 dealing with recovery of duties not levied or short levied can only be invoked after duty liability has been determined through final assessment. Proceedings initiated under Section 28 before finalization of provisional assessment are premature and not maintainable - Test reports are merely expert opinion and serve only as guiding tool to understand technical nature of product but do not have binding effect on final classification. Determination of proper classification is quasi-judicial function to be decided by adjudicating authority strictly in accordance with law and not merely on basis of inconclusive test reports – The goods were exported on provisional basis and are unavailable for confiscation therefore redemption fine under Section 125 cannot be legally sustained – The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1458-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Rule 3(5B) CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Written-off Vendor Dues versus Written-off Input Stocks - Appellant procured inputs from suppliers and availed CENVAT credit. Over a period of time, amounts payable to suppliers were written off in books of accounts due to quality issues and closure of supplier companies. Department raised demand for reversal of CENVAT credit contending that writing-off amounts indicated inputs were not used in manufacture - Whether CENVAT credit reversal is required when amounts due to vendors are written off in books of accounts if the input goods were actually used in manufacture of final products - HELD - The proper reading of Rule 3(5B) clarifies that CENVAT credit reversal is specified when the inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT credit is taken are written off as unusable stocks, not when dues to vendors are written off. The written off here means writing off of stocks as unusable, clarified by the Proviso which specifies that if initially goods are written off as unusable but subsequently found to be used, reversed credit can be taken back. Revenue has not adduced evidence showing that input stock registers reflect writing-off of actual input stocks. The entire premise of non-usage of inputs is based on written-off amount of total dues to vendors only - The Chartered Accountant Certificate produced by appellant clearly stated that goods in question were not written off from books of account and such certificate is required to be accepted unless rebutted by factual evidence by Revenue - The reduction of price payable by Appellant to suppliers due to quality difference is a commercial transaction between them and excise duty paid on transaction value was never disputed. Absence of any positive evidence that inputs on which credit has been taken are not used in manufacture of finished goods requires rejection of Revenue argument. Accordingly, demand for reversal of CENVAT credit is set aside – The appeal allowed is on merits - Extended Period - Suppression and Knowledge of Department - Appellant had written off amounts due to vendors which were recorded in books of account. Department during audit on 3.3.2015 came to know through Spot Memo that Appellant had written off amounts in respect of vendors but no Show Cause Notice was issued at that time. Show Cause Notice was issued in January 2018, almost three years later. Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked for demand when fact of write-off came to knowledge of Department in March 2015 - HELD - Appellant has written off dues to vendor and recorded same in books of account. This cannot be taken as any suppression on part of Appellant who in fact has declared these facts. Revenue on 3.3.2015 itself came to know that Appellant had written off amounts but no Show Cause Notice was issued. The issue is a matter of interpretation of Rule 3(5B) wherein Appellant's interpretation is backed by cited case laws. Absence of suppression, Department's knowledge from 3.3.2015, and the fact that the issue is a matter of interpretation where Appellant's view is supported by precedent, make it clear that no case of suppression has been made out - Confirmed demand for extended period is set aside on account of time-bar. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1463-CESTAT-DEL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Collection of excise duty as representing duty but not depositing differential amount - Applicability of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - During audit, it was found that the amount represented as excise duty in Appellant's invoices and accepted price list was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid by manufacturers on the goods. Appellant also furnished running bills with undertaking that all statutory taxes and duties have been deposited to the concerned authorities though the differential amount of excise duty was not deposited - Whether Appellant was liable to pay the dif... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1460-CESTAT-AHM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Conversion of Shipping Bills - Limitation Period - Appellant requested conversion of shipping bills from Advance Authorization scheme to Duty Drawback scheme. Commissioner rejected the request primarily on ground that conversion request was made beyond three-month period prescribed under CBIC Circular 36/2010-Cus and on ground that Appellant had already availed the Advance Authorization benefit, thereby making conversion impermissible - Whether a time limit of three months for conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another scheme prescribed under Circular 36/2010-Cus is valid and enforceable against the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962, and whether mere declaration of intent to claim Advance Authorization benefit constitutes actual availment of benefit - HELD – The authorities below have relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited, as well as in the case of Anil Sharma Vs. Union of India. The said legal position is no longer holds good as same having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd.. While rejecting the Revenue's Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010, prescribing a time limit of three months from the date of “Let Export Order”, was itself ultra vires to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Once the export has taken place, the consequential export benefit cannot be denied merely on the ground of limitation prescribed under the said Circular – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Applicability of Notification No. 11/2022-Cus. (N.T.) dated 22.02.2022, whereby a time limit was prescribed for post-export conversion of shipping bills – HELD - The said notification cannot be applied retrospectively to the exports made by the appellant between October, 2019 and January, 2022. Accordingly, the notification has no application to the facts of the present case. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1459-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs Duty - Fraudulent DFIA Licenses - Liability of Bona Fide Purchaser - Appellant purchased transferable DFIA licenses. DRI investigation revealed that the licenses had been obtained on basis of fabricated export documents filed through fake exporters and no actual exports had taken place - Appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and submitted that it had purchased the licenses through normal commercial channels for valuable consideration with payment made through banking channels - Whether an importer who purchases transferable DFIA licenses obtained on basis of fabricated exports is liable for customs duty and... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1461-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Post-export conversion of Free Shipping Bills - Amendment of documents - Appellant Merchant Exporter exported Iron Ore Fines under Free Shipping Bills although possessing valid EPCG Authorisations but inadvertently omitted to mention the EPCG License numbers in the Shipping Bills due to clerical oversight. The appellant filed an application for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into EPCG based Shipping Bills after more than eight years of export. The lower authorities rejected the conversion request solely on the ground that the request was made after the time period prescribed under the Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 and Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022, thereby treating the application as time-barred - Whether the request for conversion of Free Shipping Bills to EPCG Shipping Bills could be rejected solely on the ground of time-bar when documentary evidence of eligibility existed at the time of export and all substantive conditions for the export promotion scheme were satisfied - HELD - The rejection of the conversion request on the sole ground of time-bar is not sustainable in law. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 contains no limitation period for amendment of documents. The time limit of three months prescribed in Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 under Paragraph 3(a) has been held by various High Courts to be ultra vires Section 149. The Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022 prescribing one year limitation has no retrospective application to exports effected in 2007. The proviso to Section 149 requires existence of documentary evidence at the time of export and this condition was satisfied as all necessary export documents and evidence were available. Substantive export benefits cannot be withheld on account of procedural or clerical lapses when the exporter's eligibility is otherwise established - The rejection of the conversion request of the Shipping Bills, on the sole ground of time-bar is not legal, hence, the same stands set aside - The time limits specified under the Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 and Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022 have no application in respect of the Free Shipping Bills under consideration in the present appeal – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-59-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

GST - Composition Scheme, Automatic Lapse - Eligibility and Cessation on Exceeding Threshold Turnover - Appellant, a brick manufacturer registered under the composition scheme, was subjected to audit which disclosed a discrepancy between the turnover reflected in e-way bills and the turnover declared in FORM GST CMP-08 statements, showing that the aggregate turnover exceeded the prescribed threshold of Rs.1.50 crore. Upon such excess, the audit authorities proposed that the composition scheme was unavailable and demanded differential tax at the regular rate of 5% for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, which was upheld on first appeal - Whether upon the aggregate turnover of a registered person exceeding the threshold limit of Rs.1.50 crore prescribed under Section 10(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 the option availed for the composition scheme ceases to operate automatically, and the registered person becomes liable to discharge tax at the applicable regular rate instead of the concessional composition rate - HELD - The option availed of by a registered person under Section 10(1) shall lapse with effect from the day on which his aggregate turnover during a financial year exceeds the limit specified under Section 10(1), and this consequence is automatic and operates by force of statute. Upon the aggregate turnover crossing the statutory ceiling prescribed under the Act, the composition levy stands terminated on the occurrence of the disqualifying event, whereby the registered person ceases to remain eligible for the benefit of the composition scheme from the date of such crossing - The expression aggregate turnover bears the meaning assigned under Section 2(6) of the Act, computed on an all-India basis. The consequence flowing from Section 10(3) is automatic and the composition levy terminates immediately upon the turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold. Upon such cessation, the registered person becomes liable to discharge tax at the applicable regular rate on all supplies made on and after the date of such lapse, subject to due credit and adjustment of any composition tax already paid - The impugned order is upheld with limited modification - GST - Composition Scheme - Computation of Differential Tax - Cum-tax Valuation under Rule 35 - Where value of supply is inclusive of tax - Upon cessation of the composition scheme due to exceeding the turnover threshold, the tax authorities computed the differential tax on the entire value declared in invoices without applying the cum-tax principle - Whether the differential tax liability should be computed applying the cum-tax valuation formula prescribed under Rule 35, treating the invoice value as inclusive of tax, when a composition scheme taxpayer who was prohibited from collecting tax separately exceeds the threshold limit and becomes liable to discharge tax at the regular rate - HELD - A person opting for the composition scheme is prohibited from collecting tax from recipients and cannot claim input tax credit; invoices issued must reflect the total consideration received without any separately identifiable tax component, meaning the value must be treated as inclusive of tax. Rule 35 prescribes the methodology for determining tax amount where the value of supply is inclusive of tax. Since the Department has not alleged that the appellants collected any tax over and above the invoice value, the value declared in invoices must be treated as inclusive of tax and the tax component must be worked out in accordance with the formula prescribed under Rule 35 - The appellants are entitled to the benefit of Rule 35 even though they did not specifically claim it, as they cannot be deprived of the benefit available to them in law. The proper officer is directed to recompute the differential tax liability on the supplies made on and after the date of lapse of the composition option by treating the declared value as cum-tax and by applying the formula prescribed under Rule 35, with consequential liability towards interest and penalty recalculated on the basis of the revised tax liability - The impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of cum-tax valuation in terms of Rule 35 and the tax liability shall be recomputed accordingly. [Read less]

2026-VIL-914-CHG | High Court SGST

GST - Cancellation of Registration - Validity of Show-cause Notice and Cancellation Order - Violations of Natural Justice - Petitioner was granted seven days to file reply but no date and time was specified for personal hearing. Physical verification was conducted on 21.8.2025 and 19.8.2025 but verification report was not uploaded till passing of final order. Registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 11.12.2020 - Whether the show-cause notice and cancellation order passed without specifying date and time for personal hearing and without uploading physical verification report within stipulated period are val... [Read more]

2026-VIL-84-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Procedural defect in Show Cause Notice - Levy of penalties for fraudulent Input Tax Credit – Vide the impugned order the High Court held that the typographical error does not vitiate the notice and sufficient opportunity of hearing has been provided, hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice – Assessee in appeal – SC HELD - the High Court has rightly observed that the petitioner (appellant herein) has an alternative remedy of preferring a statutory appeal – The petitioner is granted time to prefer the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. It shall be open for the petitioner to r... [Read more]

High Court Order | High Court SGST

GST - Taxability of annuity payments under concession agreement - Applicability of Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax Rate - Scope of Circular No. 150/6/2021 - Petitioner entered into concession agreement with NHAI for construction design maintenance and operation of roads with consideration paid partly upfront and partly through deferred annual payments described as annuities over a period of ten years - Whether annuity payments for construction services falling under Heading 9954 are exempt from GST as services by way of access to road or bridge on payment of annuity falling under Heading 9967 and whether Circular No. 150/6/2021 can clarify the applicability of Entry 23A - HELD - The nature of the concession agreement is a works contract services. The contract essentially includes construction design and maintenance of roads with payments at intervals. Services for construction of roads fall under Heading 9954 while Entry 23A specifically covers Heading 9967 i.e. services by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of annuity relating to transport services. The scope of works for construction services is distinct from that of transport contracts and Entry 23A of the Notification pertains exclusively to transport services - Where the underlying service is construction of a road falling under Heading 9954 and consideration is paid partly upfront and partly through deferred annual payments described as annuities Entry 23A would not be applicable and such annuity payments would not be exempt from GST - The Circular dated 17.06.2021 is a valid clarification issued by the Board in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 168 of the CGST Act to secure uniformity in implementation of the Act. An Advance Ruling remains binding only so long as the law facts or circumstances supporting the original Advance Ruling remain unchanged. Once there is a change in circumstances forming the foundation of the Advance Ruling the binding effect ceases to operate. If Revenue officers have misunderstood the existing law their interpretation does not bind the implementing authority once the Board issues clarification – There is no merit in the challenge laid by the petitioner to the impugned Circular or in the consequential challenge to the levy of GST on the annuity payments received under the concession agreement. The challenge based upon the earlier Advance Ruling also does not alter the position, since the taxability has to be determined with reference to the statutory exemption and the true nature of the services rendered under the contract - The writ petitions are dismissed - Differed with Telangana High Court decision in GMR Pochanpalli Expreessways Limited case – HELD - The Court in a matter of CG Tollway specifically held that the scope of works for construction services is distinct from that of transport contracts. The same principles and analogy applied by the Division Bench in the CG Tollway case are directly applicable here. There is no justified reason for this Bench to adopt a differing view - The Single Bench of the Telangana High Court in the matter of GMR Pochanpalli Expreessways Limited struck down the impugned Circular, but the Division Bench in the matter of CG Tollway distinguished this decision. In its judgment, the Division Bench provided a detailed interpretation of the issues at hand. It reached a different conclusion from the analogy adopted by the Telangana High Court and we see no convincing reasons to disagree with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench - Binding Nature of Advance Ruling – HELD - The submission of petitioner counsel that Revenue should not have acted against its own advance ruling is not tenable and suffices to say that the Notification itself is binding and if revenue officers have misunderstood the existing law, their interpretation does not bind the implementing authority once the Board issues clarification. Section 168 of the Act authorises the Board to issue such instructions, orders or circulars to ensure the proper implementation of the law, especially when the Advance Ruling authority has misread the legal provisions. If such a misinterpretation results in significant revenue loss for the state, the Board has every right to step in and set things straight, as allowing the error to go unchecked would be unacceptable. Moreover, the revenue's actions following the circular in question are justified, as Section 103 of the CGST Act clearly grants the authorities the power to take such measures when the law does not specifically prohibit them. [Read less]

2026-VIL-902-ALH | High Court SGST

GST – Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Procedure for detention and seizure of goods - Classification of proceedings – Detention of goods on the ground that e-way bill was not tendered, and on finding from assessing authority that appellant was unregistered dealer - The seizing authority initiated proceedings under Section 129(1)(b) instead of Section 129(1)(a), though registration of Appellant was suspended only at time of interception but was restored before adjudication - Whether when tax invoice is accompanied with goods in transit and registration is subsequently restored, proceedings ought t... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1478-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Special Additional Customs Duty - Refund Claim - Period of Limitation - Subordinate Legislation vs. Substantive Rights - Appellant engaged in business of import and trading of various plastics and textile products filed Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods in years 2012-2014. Assessing Authority rejected declared value in Bills of Entry and re-determined values under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Appellant challenged assessment before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside order and accepted declared value on 11.03.2022. On 07.12.2022, appellant filed refund claim for Special Additional Customs Duty (4% SAD) in respect of Bills of Entry. Respondent rejected refund claim on ground of limitation relying upon Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 which prescribed one-year limitation from date of payment of additional duty of customs for filing refund applications. Appellant contends that earlier Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 had no period of limitation and said limitation was prescribed for first time through Notification No. 93/2008-Cus and such limitation cannot be imposed through subordinate legislation without statutory amendment - Whether one-year limitation period prescribed in Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 is valid and applicable to refund claims filed after expiry of prescribed period - HELD - Notification No. 102/2007-Customs as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus prescribed one-year limitation for filing refund claims for additional duty of customs, but said limitation has been read down by Delhi High Court in case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. High Court held that period of limitation being essential legislative policy aspect cannot be prescribed by subordinate legislation. In matters dealing with substantive rights such as refunds, parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations and subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail. Imposition of period of limitation for first time without statutory amendment through notification could not prevail. The amending notification must be read down to extent that it imposes limitation period. Tribunal in case of Ghaio Mall and Sons v. Commissioner, Ludhiana followed ratio of Delhi High Court and held that time limitation of one year specified under notification shall not apply until and unless basic provisions of Section 27 of the Act dealing with refunds are made applicable. For provisionally assessed Bill of Entry which has not been finalized, limitation is inapplicable because limitation starts from date of finalization of assessment - Impugned order is not sustainable in law as it rejects refund claim solely on ground of limitation prescribed in notification which has been read down by High Court - Appeal is allowed with consequential relief [Read less]

2026-VIL-55-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Contravention of Section 171 of CGST Act - Liability to pass on benefit of Input Tax Credit to homebuyers - After reinvestigation pursuant to remand, DGAP determined that Respondent had collected higher amounts from homebuyers without passing on the full benefit of additional ITC available under GST, thereby profiteering - Whether Respondent has passed on the benefit of additional ITC to homebuyers in accordance with statute - HELD - Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the extent that Respondent has not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit amount ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1462-CESTAT-AHM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Duty demand on non-fulfilment of export obligation - EPCG Import - Force majeure circumstances - Appellants imported embroidery machinery under valid EPCG Licenses and saved customs duty upon furnishing required bonds and bank guarantees. Due to unprecedented floods in the jurisdiction, the imported machinery got submerged in water and damaged beyond repair notwithstanding which the appellants subsequently shifted the machinery to safe premises - The Customs authorities demanded recovery of the duty saved along with interest and also confiscated the imported machinery, imposed redemption fine and penalty. The appellants contended that they could not fulfil the export obligations due to force majeure circumstances and that the machinery became incapable of production due to damage, relying on Notification No.97/2004-Cus. read with para 4 as amended vide Notification No.72/2007-Cus. - Whether the confiscation of imported machinery and imposition of penalty and redemption fine can be maintained where export obligation is not fulfilled due to force majeure circumstances beyond the control of the importer - HELD - As per Condition of the notification, if the importer fails to fulfil export obligation within the stipulated time, then he is required to pay the customs duty. However, as per condition 7 of para 2, the importer could request DGFT authorities for grating extension of time for completing the export obligation. The appellant could not produce any waiver of export obligation either from the committee or from DGFT authorities - The conditions of Notification No.97/2004-Cus. are explicit that duty concession was granted subject to fulfilment of export obligation and failure to fulfil specified obligation would require payment of duty saved along with interest - Exemption notifications require strict interpretation and the burden lies on the assessee to demonstrate that the case falls within the parameters of the exemption. However confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act cannot be justified when there are reasons beyond the control of the importer for non-fulfilment of obligation. Similarly penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be imposed without mens rea and where the importer had made sincere efforts but circumstances were beyond control, mens rea is absent - The duty demand and interest liability are upheld but the confiscation of imported machinery, redemption fine and penalty are set aside as unjustified - The impugned orders are modified and the appeals are partially allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-904-RAJ | High Court SGST

GST - Cancellation of Registration - Validity of show-cause notice and cancellation order that does not indicate the details of fraud, kinds of willful misstatement and suppression of facts made by the noticee/petitioner - Whether show-cause notice lacking specific details of fraud willful misstatement and suppression of facts with response date same as notice date is valid and whether cancellation order lacking reasoning is valid - HELD - A show-cause notice is invalid when it does not indicate the details of fraud details of misstatement and details of suppression of facts. The response or explanation cannot be filed on ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-906-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Challenge to Notification No. 22/2024 - Central Tax dated 8/10/2024 - Special Procedure under Notification 22/2024 - Scope of Government's power to prescribe procedures under Section 148 of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenged Notification No. 22/2024 dated 8/10/2024 issued to implement Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which permits registered persons to claim input tax credit in returns filed upto 30/11/2021 for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 - Whether the Notification validly prescribes a special procedure and whether it provides for requisite safeguards includ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-81-SC-ST | Supreme Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Demand of service tax on fees charged under "Standard & Labelling" and "Processing Fee" under “Technical Inspection and Certification Service” – The Tribunal held that the activity does not fall within the taxable ambit of Technical Inspection and Certification Service and service tax is not leviable. The fees charged under 'Standard & Labelling' and 'Processing Fee' are not taxable as Technical Inspection and Certification Service – Revenue in appeal – SC HELD - The decision which has been relied upon by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not been subjected to challenge and therefo... [Read more]

2026-VIL-907-PAT | High Court SGST

GST - Refund of Excess Input Tax Credit - Withholding of refund during pendency of appeal - Procedure prescribed under Section 54(11) of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner applied for refund of accumulated balance in Electronic Cash Ledger - Whether respondent authorities can withhold refund during pendency of appeal before Tribunal without passing a specific order under Section 54(11) of CGST Act - HELD – The Section 54(11) CGST Act mandates that the Commissioner can withhold refund during pendency of appeal only if he is of opinion that grant of refund is likely to adversely affect revenue. Such withholding must be done throu... [Read more]

2026-VIL-912-MAD | High Court SGST

GST – Demand of IGST on Ocean Freight in CIF contract - Department issued Notices imposing IGST on ocean freight as supply of service - Whether ocean freight in CIF contracts constitutes separate taxable supply of service or forms part of composite supply of goods - HELD - Following Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, ocean freight in CIF contracts constitutes composite supply comprising supply of goods and supply of transportation services. When IGST is levied on composite supply on entire value including ocean freight, separate levy of GST on freight component is not leviable –... [Read more]

2026-VIL-900-GUJ-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Pre-deposit requirement, Restoration of the dismissed appeals - Appellant engaged in business of providing immovable property on rent was demanded service tax with penalty - The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement imposed by the stay order. Subsequently, the Department recovered the entire service tax liability through attachment of the appellant's bank account and the remaining differential amount was paid by the appellant. The appellant then approached the Tribunal for restoration of the dismissed appeals - Whether the Tribunal can restore appeals which were dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit requirement when the entire service tax liability was subsequently recovered by the Department through attachment and partial deposits - HELD - The entire service tax liability payable by the appellant has been recovered by the Department and therefore there is sufficient compliance of the order imposing pre-deposit of the amount. The right of appeal is sacrosanct and should not be lightly taken away - The Tribunal is vested with powers under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to pass such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice. Even where the pre-deposit requirement is not initially fulfilled, a relaxed view should be taken of belated compliance if there is an explanation for the delay - The reasons assigned by the Tribunal that once the matter was dismissed for non-payment of the pre-deposit amount, the same cannot be restored even after the amount paid, is not tenable and the Tribunal ought to have passed an order exercising the powers under Rule 41 of the Rules to restore the Appeals - The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and both appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal to be decided on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-903-ALH | High Court SGST

GST - Mode of Refund when business is discontinued and registration is surrendered - Whether refund amount credited as ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be paid in cash when the Electronic Credit Ledger has ceased to be functional upon discontinuation of business and surrender of registration - HELD - There is no prohibition under the provisions of the GST Law against making payment in cash of the amount which was earlier directed to be re-credited as ITC. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's business is no longer in existence and the Electronic Credit Ledger has... [Read more]

2026-VIL-910-MAD | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Transit Sale and Works Contract - Exemption under Section 6(2) CST Act 1956 - Appellate Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Assessee challenged remand order before Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed appeal on ground of statutory bar under third proviso to Section 58(1)(b) of TNVAT Act, 2006 - Whether an order remanding matter for fresh assessment by Appellate Authority constitutes order set aside within meaning of third proviso to Section 58(1) thereby placing statutory embargo on Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain appeal - HELD - When Appellate Authority reopens all predominant issues for ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-909-GUJ-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Unjust Enrichment Bar in Refund Claims - Chartered Accountant Certificate as Proof of Non-Recovery of Duty – Respondent-assessee imported bunker oil contained in tanks as part of vessel for breaking, initially assessed to duty under Chapter 27 and paid provisional duty, later reassessed under Chapter 89.08 as part of vessel. Assessee claimed refund of excess duty paid, contending that duty was not passed on to any buyer - Department rejected claim on ground that assessee had not submitted relevant documents as required under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and merely submitted Chartered Accountant certificate, and further that duty was shown as expenditure in Profit and Loss Account rather than as receivable in balance sheet - Whether Chartered Accountant certificate certifying non-passing of duty is sufficient evidence to discharge burden of proof where financial records were not produced and duty was debited as expense - HELD - Once an assessee produces certificate issued by Chartered Accountant based on documents placed on record certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any buyer coupled with evidence that goods have been sold at price below import cost value on which duty was assessed, the burden shifts to the Revenue to produce tangible evidence to rebut such certificate and discharge the onus shifted on it - Where goods are eventually sold at price far less than assessed values and assessee has not been able to recover even the full import price of goods on which duty was assessed, there is no question of passing the duty paid to customers - Merely debiting duty as expense in Profit and Loss Account does not result in incidence thereof being passed on to buyers when price at which goods were sold to buyers was even less than import price on which duty was assessed - Chartered Accountant certificate based on documents on record is binding on adjudicating authority and must be considered as authentic document. The bar of unjust enrichment cannot be said to apply where assessee has borne the burden of duty and never passed it on to buyer. Reliance placed on Mafatlal Industries is not applicable when goods are sold below import cost. Refund claims are entitled to be allowed where duty was not passed on as certified by Chartered Accountant and as evident from sales data showing sale price below import cost – Revenue appeals are dismissed and the judgment of CESTAT allowing refund is upheld [Read less]

2026-VIL-138-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Job Work Services on Handicraft Items - GST Rate and Applicable Conditions - Applicability of Concessional Rate to Registered Principal - Applicant sought Advance Ruling on GST rate applicable on job work services for handicraft items made of brass and wood - Applicant proposed to purchase raw brass under HSN 7403 and send to job workers for processing resulting in brass statues under HSN 8306 and also to avail job work services for wooden handicraft items under HSN 4420 - Whether concessional rate of 5% under Entry No. 26 of Notification 11/2017 applies to such services - HELD - Services by way of job work in relation to handicraft items of brass consisting of raw brass HSN 7403 processed into brass statues HSN 8306 attract GST at 5% under item ii(j) of Sl. No. 26 of Notification 11/2017 as substituted from 22.09.2025. Same rate of 5 percent applies to job work services in relation to handicraft items of wood covered under HSN 4420 being carved wood products - The concessional rate available only if applicant is registered person at relevant time so that process answers definition of job work under Section 2(68) and goods qualify as handicraft goods meaning products made by craftsmen predominantly by hand as per Notification 32/2017. Where conditions not fulfilled services attract GST at 18 percent under residual item - During period of non-registration any treatment or process would not amount to job work and concessional rate not available – Ordered accordingly - Classification of Resin Statues and Vases - Tariff Classification - Applicability of Heading 9703 for Original Sculptures - Applicant sought classification of resin statues and vases proposed to be dealt in business under HSN 9703 00 90 originally sculptures and statuary - Whether mass produced resin articles qualify for classification under Heading 9703 - HELD - Heading 9703 covers original sculptures and statuary in any material but Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 97 excludes mass produced reproductions and works of conventional craftsmanship of commercial character. Resin statues and vases by their nature are articles produced commercially through casting or moulding in multiples and cannot be regarded as original sculptures or statuary. Resin is artificial synthetic plastic material covered under Chapter 39 and articles of plastics not elsewhere specified fall under heading 3926. Statuettes and other ornamental articles of plastics are specifically covered under sub-heading 3926 40. Resin statues merit classification under tariff item 3926 40 29 statuettes other and ornamental resin vases under tariff item 3926 40 99 other ornamental articles - Classification under HSN 9703 00 90 rejected and correct classification determined as 3926 40 29 for resin statues and 3926 40 99 for resin vases - Exemption Status of Deities Made of Marble and Wood - Chapter Level Classification - Applicant sought clarification on GST exemption for deities made of marble and wood and correct eight digit HSN classification - Whether deities made of marble classifiable under Chapter 68 and wooden deities under Chapter 44 are exempt under S. No. 124 of Notification 10/2025 dated 17.09.2025 - HELD - Deities made of marble and wood are covered under exemption entry S. No. 124 of Notification 10/2025 which exempts goods falling under Chapter 44 or 68 answering description deities made of stone marble or wood from GST. The exemption available with effect from 22.09.2025 and only where article supplied is in fact a deity meaning idol or murti of god or goddess and decorative statues not qualifying as deities would not get benefit - Exemption does not depend upon particular sub classification at eight digit level as entry in column 2 is at Chapter level. Deities made of marble being worked monumental stone of marble fall under heading 6802 specifically under tariff item 6802 91 00 other marble travertine and alabaster. Deities made of wood being statuettes and ornaments of wood fall under heading 4420 specifically under tariff item 4420 11 00 where made of tropical wood or tariff item 4420 19 00 where made of any other wood depending on species. [Read less]

2026-VIL-908-MAD | High Court SGST

GST - Limitation Period for Appeal - Exclusion of Time in Rectification Proceedings under Section 14 of Limitation Act - Scope of Rectification Petitions under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner case that time spent in prosecuting a rectification petition is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before appellate authorities under Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD - The Limitation Act per se does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, but the principles underlying the Limitation Act, particularly Section 14, do apply to proceedings before GST appellate authorities. GST enactments neither expressly nor implicitly exclude the application of principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act - The term “other cause of a like nature” is not confined to causes falling within the same genus as defects of jurisdiction and extends to rejection of rectification petitions on the ground that no error is apparent. Time spent in pursuing a rectification petition in good faith and with due diligence can be excluded from the limitation period prescribed under Section 107, provided the petitioner satisfies all requisite conditions including that both proceedings relate to the same matter and were pursued between the same parties with due diligence and in good faith. Good faith requirement entails a broad examination of the rectification petition to determine whether there was some basis for lodging it - Rejection of a rectification petition on merits is not a full-fledged examination but qualifies as a bona fide mistaken remedy falling within the scope of other cause of a like nature, warranting exclusion of time. The extent of exclusion includes the entire time consumed from filing of rectification petition to date of rejection thereof. For purposes of evaluating exclusion under Section 14, it is necessary to examine each individual case to determine whether the petitioner has established entitlement to exclusion – In view of the facts of individual cases, seven writ petitions are allowed with direction to appellate authorities to receive and dispose appeals on merits; time exclusion granted in matters with rectification grounds meeting criteria of good faith and due diligence; certain cases remanded with specified remittance conditions; remaining cases dismissed – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-139-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Classification of Services - Composite Supply or not - Applicant engaged in upkeep and maintenance of Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board Housing Units under contract with Greater Chennai Corporation - Applicant claimed services constitute composite supply of goods and services entitled to nil rate of GST under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – Applicable classification of upkeep and maintenance services and whether services qualify for composite supply exemption - HELD - Services of upkeep and maintenance of housing units encompassing sweeping, cleaning and garbage removal are appropriately classifiable under SAC 999423- General Waste collection services residential, which is specific and pertinent to nature of services undertaken rather than residuary heading. Services do not qualify for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as requirement of composite supply is not satisfied - Composite supply requires supply made to recipient consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services naturally bundled together in ordinary course of business with one principal supply. In present case no transfer of ownership or possession of any goods to Greater Chennai Corporation occurs. The consumables are merely specified for deployment and maintenance requirements and are only used for work performance, not supplied as goods to recipient. By applicant's own admission consumables and welfare kits have no transfer of ownership and are left as such after contract expiry. Condition in notification relating to value of goods not exceeding 25% of composite supply cannot be invoked when there is no composite supply at all - All conditions for exemption must be cumulatively satisfied. Since fundamental requirement of composite supply is not met, exemption eligibility cannot be sustained regardless of whether other conditions are satisfied - Services classified under SAC 999423 General Waste collection services residential. Applicant not eligible for exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-901-MAD | High Court VAT

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Eligibility to input tax credit on purchase of Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) - Appellant purchased Duty Entitlement Passbook and imported plastic granules utilising DEPB and availed Input Tax Credit under Section 19 of TNVAT Act on tax borne while purchasing DEPB, claiming plastic granules were partly used in manufacturing plastic products and partly sold as granules for manufacturing other plastic products - Whether DEPB licenses are eligible for Input Tax Credit under Section 19(1) of TNVAT Act despite being goods as defined under Section 2(21) of the TNVAT Act - HELD – The DEPB licenses t... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-60-GSTAT-TVP | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1475-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1477-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1476-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-915-KER | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1469-CESTAT-CHD-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1471-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1473-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1472-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1468-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1470-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

GSTAT Order | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-83-SC | Supreme Court SGST

2026-VIL-1465-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1464-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-82-SC-ST | Supreme Court SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-913-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1466-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-916-ALH | High Court VAT

2026-VIL-54-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1474-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-911-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1467-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1458-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1463-CESTAT-DEL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1460-CESTAT-AHM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1459-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1461-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-59-GSTAT-HYD | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-914-CHG | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-84-SC | Supreme Court SGST

High Court Order | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-902-ALH | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1478-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-55-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1462-CESTAT-AHM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-904-RAJ | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-906-BOM | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-81-SC-ST | Supreme Court SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-907-PAT | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-912-MAD | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-900-GUJ-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-903-ALH | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-910-MAD | High Court VAT

2026-VIL-909-GUJ-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-138-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-908-MAD | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-139-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

2026-VIL-901-MAD | High Court VAT

Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

More Judgements

Home

More Judgements