More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-1777-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand on the Basis of Form 26AS and Income Tax Returns and Invocation of Extended Period - Appellant, a registered person providing repair and maintenance services and goods transport agency service and filing returns, was issued a show cause notice for the extended period based on the mismatch between Form 26AS, Income Tax Returns and Service Tax Returns - Commissioner (Appeals) went through the factual details and reduced the demand substantially, and the Revenue did not appeal against the portion dropped - Appellant contended that suppression cannot be alleged against a registered person filing returns - Whether the demand confirmed on third party data without corroborative evidence and the invocation of the extended period are sustainable - HELD - The Department issued the initial notice without proper verification and investigation, purely on Form 26AS details. Mere entries in Income Tax Returns or Form 26AS cannot by themselves establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994 unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service. Mechanical reliance on income tax data without verification of the nature of receipts is impermissible - Form 26AS is maintained on a cash basis for income tax while service tax is chargeable on accrual basis. The extended period is not invokable on the basis of such data - The balance demand for the extended period is set aside, and the Appellant is to pay service tax, if any, with interest for the normal period after proper quantification - The appeal is partly allowed - Service Tax - Confirmation of Demand for Part of the Year by Proportionate Allocation of Income Not Proposed in Show Cause Notice - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed demand for the first three months of the financial year by proportionately allocating the income, when the show cause notice had not proposed such a procedure - Whether the demand quantified by proportionate allocation without proper data can be sustained - HELD - The Commissioner (Appeals) calculated the liability without any proper data for the three months, and such a procedure was not proposed in the show cause notice - The service tax liability so confirmed is set aside, and the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1776-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Revenue Neutrality as a Defence to Reverse Charge Liability on Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service under Notification No. 30/2012-ST - Appellant, a body corporate, paid various individual service providers for manpower recruitment or supply agency services and did not pay service tax under reverse charge - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand in part with interest, and Appellant contended that the demand is revenue neutral since it was entitled to Cenvat credit of the tax demanded - Revenue contended that non-payment was a loss to the exchequer and that revenue neutrality cannot excuse non-payment, as otherwise the credit chain would be obsolete - Whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge notwithstanding its eligibility to Cenvat credit - HELD - Liability to service tax under Section 66A arises on the provider's taxable event and is not contingent on the recipient's entitlement to credit. Credit of tax paid under Section 68(2) arises under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 only upon payment, and Rule 4(7) read with Rule 9 makes payment the condition precedent. Credit is a concession subject to the Rules and not an accrued right. The duty liability therefore does not get extinguished because the Appellant was eligible to avail Cenvat credit. No distinction can be placed between the service receiver and the service provider for the purpose of the charging Section once responsibility is fixed under reverse charge - The Appellant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge as recipient of the services - Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 where Recipient Liable under Reverse Charge is Eligible to Cenvat Credit - Non-payment of tax was noticed during audit, the transactions were recorded in the books and paid through banking channel, and Appellant contended that it acted under a bona fide belief and was entitled to Cenvat credit of the tax demanded - Revenue contended that the Appellant failed to assess its liability, did not reflect correct information in the returns and suppressed material facts with intent to evade duty - Whether the extended period was validly invoked and the penalty under Section 78 is sustainable - HELD - It is a settled position of law that if the recipient of the service is liable to pay service tax and is simultaneously eligible to avail Cenvat credit of the tax paid, the extended period cannot be invoked - The invocation of the extended period is not correct and the penalty under Section 78 is set aside, while the demand for the normal period, if any, is upheld along with the penalty under Section 77, and the appeal is allowed to that extent. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1774-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Re-assessment of Classification and Value under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 without Speaking Order - Respondent self-assessed imported ice making machinery under CTH 8438 80 90, the proper officer re-assessed it under CTH 8418 69 90 and enhanced the value, and Respondent paid the revised duty under protest to avoid demurrage - No order was passed under Section 17(5) and no opportunity was given to Respondent to submit documentary evidence - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the revised classification and valuation, and Revenue contended in appeal that payment of duty amounted to acceptance of the re-assessment - Whether the re-classification and enhancement of value are sustainable in the absence of a speaking order under Section 17(5) - HELD - Section 17(5) requires the proper officer to pass a speaking order within fifteen days where re-assessment is contrary to the self-assessment, except where the importer confirms acceptance in writing. Admittedly, no order was passed under Section 17(5). Importers pay the revised duty to cut down demurrage and other charges, and this cannot be taken as confirmation of acceptance. Respondent paid under protest by a letter and filed appeals against the Bills of Entry, so there was never any confirmation of acceptance in writing. The re-assessment is to be set aside where no speaking order is passed - Non-issuance of an order under Section 17(5) proves fatal to the Revenue's case, and the revised classification and enhancement of value are set aside – The appeal is dismissed - Classification of Imported Ice Making Machinery under CTH 8438 80 90 or CTH 8418 69 90 - Respondent classified the imported ice cream making machines under CTH 8438 80 90, Revenue re-classified them under CTH 8418 69 90 relying on the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 84 and an Advance Ruling, and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification under CTH 8438 - Revenue itself had classified such goods under CTH 8438 in a review order of 2008 and in Orders-in-Appeal of 2012 and 2025, which it did not agitate further, and the later clearance of the same goods of the same importer was allowed under CTH 8438 - Whether the re-classification of the goods under CTH 8418 is sustainable - HELD - There is some force in the point made by Revenue on the Explanatory Notes. However, in spite of the Explanatory Notes, Revenue itself was classifying the machines under CTH 8438, and the classification arrived at in the two Orders-in-Appeal stands accepted. The change in classification was not supported by any order under Section 17(5), which would have enabled Respondent to put forth its defence. Revenue cannot pick and choose the course of filing appeals in respect of the same goods by not filing appeals in some cases citing the National Litigation Policy and filing them in others. Total confusion prevails in the classification of the goods, as Revenue classified them under CTH 8438 in 2008, 2012, 2018 and 2025 and under CTH 8418 in the present imports, and the benefit of such confusion goes to Respondent - Re-classification under CTH 8418 is legally not sustainable, the correct classification is CTH 8438, and the classification arrived at by Revenue is set aside - Enhancement of Declared Value of Imported Goods without Evidence or Following Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Value of the imported goods was enhanced by the assessing officer consequent to the change in classification, Respondent paid duty on the enhanced value under protest, and Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement as made without evidence - No order under Section 17(5) stated the method adopted for arriving at the revised value - Whether the enhancement of the declared value can be sustained - HELD - Where no order under Section 17(5) is passed stating the method or procedure adopted for arriving at the revised value, the enhanced value gets set aside on that ground itself. No reasons were given for rejection of the transaction value, no corroborative evidence such as comparable goods or NIDB data was brought forth, and no opportunity was given to justify the declared value. The invoice raised by the manufacturer should not be doubted unless found to be fake or not genuine, and the transaction value cannot be rejected without clear and cogent evidence. Mere acceptance of the enhanced value by the importer does not preclude it from appealing against an arbitrary enhancement. Revenue has not brought in any evidence as to the basis of the enhanced value, and the case laws cited by it are a toothless defence to cover up its shortcomings at the initial stage - The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on valuation are concurred with, the enhancement of value is rightly set aside, and the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1772-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Computation of IGST on Imported Goods under Section 3(7) and 3(8) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 where Basic Customs Duty is Exempted under Notification No. 19/2015-Customs for Imports against DFIA - Appellant imported polyester viscose fabrics against a valid DFIA claiming exemption from basic customs duty, and the customs system captured basic customs duty at the tariff rate for computing IGST although the duty claimed was zero - Appellant paid the IGST as computed since the system did not permit amendment and appealed against the assessed Bills of Entry, and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals holding tha... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1773-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Penalty on Chartered Engineers for Valuation of Second Hand Machinery Where the Demand Against the Importers is Set Aside - Appellants, Chartered Engineers, were engaged by the importers under the Board's Circular dated 19.11.1987 to examine and value imported old and used offset printing machinery, and the goods were released on payment of duty on that valuation - Investigation alleged undervaluation by the importers, and penalty was imposed on each Appellant on the allegation that they omitted to ascertain the correct present value independently, rendering the machines liable to confiscation - Appellants contended that they applied reverse indexation on the wholesale price index and depreciation as per the Board's circular, and that their valuation was only a proposal which the proper officer was not bound to accept - Revenue contended that the certificates were issued without proper verification and inspection - Whether penalty on the Chartered Engineers is sustainable when the demand, penalty and confiscation against the importers are set aside - HELD - In the appeals of the main importers decided earlier by the same Bench, the allegation of undervaluation was not corroborated by documentary evidence, and the opinion of the experts of the printing institute was full of discrepancies and could not be used as evidence to enhance the value. The method adopted by the Chartered Engineer was the logical and scientific method, which the Revenue discarded while implicating the Chartered Engineers to prove its case. The entire demand was also held time barred, and the demand, penalty and confiscation against the importers and the penalties on their directors were set aside. Since the confirmed demand, interest and penalties against the main appellants are legally not sustainable, the penalties on the present Appellants also do not survive - The penalties imposed on the Appellants are set aside, and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1770-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Includibility of 99% VAT Retained under State Industrial Incentive Scheme in Transaction Value under Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant, a manufacturer of water storage tanks and MS pipes, was granted benefit under the Industrial and Investment Policy of Assam, 2008 and the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009, under which 99% of the tax payable for each return period was allowed as partial exemption or remission and 1% was deposited - Revenue held the VAT retained to be includable in the assessable value relying on Super Synotex Ltd., and confirmed the duty demand with interest and equal penalty under Section 11AC - Whether the 99% VAT retained under the incentive scheme forms part of the price or consideration received from the buyer and is includable in the transaction value - HELD - Eligibility under the scheme depended upon investment and commencement of commercial production, and the benefit was limited by the fixed capital investment and the entitlement period. The assessment mechanism first quantified the tax payable and thereafter allowed the statutory benefit. The retained amount was not an additional amount paid by the buyer by reason of or in connection with the sale and is therefore not includible in the transaction value under Section 4(3)(d). Super Synotex Ltd. case is distinguishable, since the amount retained was not the Appellant's income but a subsidy given by the State Government under its industrial policy. A time bound and investment linked 99% VAT retention granted to an eligible industrial unit is a State incentive and not sale consideration, though those matters arose under the earlier 2003 policy and 2005 scheme - The remission of 99% VAT is a subsidy given by the State Government and is not includable in the assessable value - The demand of duty with interest and penalty is not sustainable - Extended Period of Limitation and Penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on Valuation Dispute Arising from Audit - Demand was raised on the basis of an audit of the Appellant's unit, the audit had already noticed the retention of the 99% VAT benefit, and the Department sought particulars by letters to which the Appellant replied before the show cause notice was issued - Whether the extended period was validly invoked and the equal penalty under Section 11AC is sustainable - HELD - The retention of the 99% VAT benefit was known to the Department, and the Appellant furnished the particulars sought before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Appellant has not suppressed any information, and the extended period cannot be invoked. The CBEC Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX has also recognised that the extended period is unavailable on this valuation controversy. Suppression of facts with intention to evade duty is not established, and the equal penalty under Section 11AC is therefore not sustainable - The demand cannot be confirmed by invoking the extended period, the penalty is set aside, and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1769-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Scope of Exclusion in Clause (A) of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for Contractor Services - Appellant, a cement manufacturer, took credit of service tax on services of contractors engaged for setting up a captive thermal power plant and for expansion, upgradation, repair and maintenance work in the cement plant - Audit alleged that the services involved construction of a civil structure or building and laying of foundation or structures for support of capital goods and were excluded from the definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011 - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the entire demand, though it had itself found part of the credit to be in order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial for six contractors on the basis of a few sample bills - Whether the services of the contractors fall within clause (A) of the exclusion in Rule 2(l) and what test governs that inquiry - HELD - The main limb of the definition is wide and the inclusive limb expressly covers services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory. Once a service is caught by the exclusion, its nexus with manufacture cannot rescue it. The exclusion is not engaged merely because a service is rendered in the course of a project, or because it involves steel, fabrication or a works contract. The service must be one of the specified services, and it must be used for construction of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or for laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods. Erection, installation and commissioning of machinery, its repair and maintenance, and the hire of equipment such as a crane are not by themselves any of these purposes. This is a question of fact to be answered from the work order and the invoice, transaction by transaction - Rule 9(6) places the burden of proving admissibility on the manufacturer, which is discharged in the first instance by producing the invoices and work orders and explaining how the service was used. Rule 9(6) neither permits a blanket assumption that everything done by a contractor on a project site is construction nor allows an authority to call upon the assessee to prove a negative. The order in original disposed of five contractors in a single sentence without reference to any work order or invoice. The order in appeal rested on sample bills and bare conclusions. For the next period the Department itself found the work of the largest contractor to be repair and maintenance of factory machinery, and that finding must be taken into account - The denial of credit on merits cannot be sustained, and eligibility is to be examined afresh only for the credit that is not time barred - The appeal is partly allowed on limitation - Extended Period of Limitation under Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for Recovery of CENVAT Credit - Show cause notice invoked the extended period on the allegations that details of the credit were not shown in the ER-1 returns, that invoices and work orders were not furnished before the audit, and that the matter would not have come to light but for the audit, while acknowledging that all the transactions were available in the records of the Appellant - Audit had examined the invoices and issued its report long before the notice, and the Appellant had described the scope of work of each contractor to the Range officer, yet the notice was issued after a considerable delay without explanation - Whether the extended period under Section 11A(4) was validly invoked - HELD - When the notice was issued, the normal period was one year, and the later enlargement to two years cannot revive a demand already barred. Section 11A(4) extends the period to five years only where duty has escaped by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade payment of duty - Where the facts are known to both parties, omission by one to do what he might have done is not suppression. The burden of proving suppression lies on the Revenue - The extended period was not available, the demand for credit beyond one year before the date of the notice is barred by limitation and set aside together with interest, and the credit within the normal period is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to quantify and decide its eligibility afresh - Interest under Section 11AA and Penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on Credit Denied to Contractor Services - Penalty equal to the credit was imposed on the finding of wilful intention, and the notice proposed penalty only under Rule 15(2) on the footing of suppression - Extended period had been held not invocable and part of the demand was remitted for fresh decision - Whether interest and the penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC can be sustained - HELD - The penalty rests on the very allegation of suppression with intent to evade, which stands unproved, and it cannot stand for any part of the period. The Adjudicating Authority cannot on remand impose a penalty on a footing not proposed in the notice, since adjudication cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. The dispute is in any event one of interpretation, and no penalty is therefore imposable. Interest under Rule 14 read with Section 11AA follows only on such credit within the normal period as is found on remand to be ineligible and to have been utilised - The penalty is set aside in its entirety, interest on the time barred demand is set aside, and the appeal is partly allowed on limitation. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1771-CESTAT-DEL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Claim of Interest at 12% per annum on Refund of Amount Deposited during Investigation as Compensation - Appellant deposited amounts during investigation and before the first show cause notice, the demand was confirmed and the deposits appropriated, and the Tribunal later set aside the order of the Commissioner - Refund was sanctioned without interest, and Appellant claimed interest at 12% from the date of payment, relying on decisions following Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - Whether interest can be granted at 12% per annum as compensation on the amount wrongly withheld - HELD - The decisions relied upon by the Appellant followed Sandvik Asia, which was referred to a larger bench in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The larger bench clarified that Sandvik Asia was passed on the peculiar facts of that case and that an assessee can claim only the interest provided under the statute. Those decisions did not have the benefit of Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The Act prescribes the rate and period of interest in sections 11AA, 11BB and 35FF, and the rate is notified by the Central Government within the range by delegated legislation. Courts and Tribunals cannot fix the rate, and interest can be paid only at the rate and from the date as per the law and not on a view of fairness or equity - The claim of interest at 12% is rejected, and interest can be granted only under the statutory provision applicable - Nature of Amount Deposited during Investigation and Interest under Section 11BB or Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 on its Refund - Appellant deposited amounts through cheques and a debit entry in the CENVAT account at the behest of investigating officers before any assessment, the amounts were credited to the excise duty head of account, and they were appropriated in the adjudication order which was set aside by the Tribunal - Revenue contended that the refund was one of duty under Section 11B, accepted by the Appellant, so that interest under Section 11BB was not payable since the refund was sanctioned within three months of the application - Whether the amount deposited during investigation is duty, and whether interest is payable under Section 11BB or Section 35FF - HELD - For an amount to be tax or duty, it must be deposited under that head, paid against an assessment or modification of an assessment, and be due at that time. At the time of deposit there was neither assessed duty nor a confirmed demand, so the amount was only a deposit akin to the balance in the erstwhile Personal Ledger Account or the electronic cash ledger under GST. The Act empowers no officer to compel an assessee to pay any amount in anticipation of liability that may arise after investigation, and the assessee can seek refund immediately without proving duress. The amount was not due even after the adjudication order since the Appellant had filed an appeal, and the Commissioner should not have appropriated it. The Appellant did not apply under Section 11B, and even if it had, the nature of the amount would not change. Where the amount deposited during investigation exceeds the mandatory pre-deposit and has not been refunded, the entire amount is to be treated as pre-deposit. The Tribunal admitted the appeal treating the entire amount as pre-deposit, so Section 35FF applies - The amount deposited during investigation is treated as deposit under Section 35F, interest is payable under Section 35FF at the applicable rate from the date of deposit till the date of refund, and the appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1768-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – Refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 of Unutilised Credit on Clearances to 100% Export Oriented Unit as Deemed Export – Appellant, a manufacturer of hydraulic motor parts, cleared the final products to a 100% Export Oriented Unit without payment of duty under the notification, and also cleared them to customers in the Domestic Tariff Area – Refund of CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture was sanctioned by the original authority, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeals, and the recovery of the refunds sanctioned was confirmed in the protective show cause notices – Appellant contended that clearances to a 100% EOU are deemed export and that Explanation (1A) to Rule 5 was inserted only with effect from 01.03.2015, after the period in dispute – Revenue contended that clearance to an EOU is only a legal fiction and not export for Rule 5, and relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in BAPL Industries Ltd. v. Union of India – Whether the authorities below were justified in rejecting the refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD – The issue is no more res integra. In JBM Auto Limited v. CCE Noida, the coordinate Bench followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the assessee's own case and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. NBM Industries, and held that clearance to a 100% EOU is deemed export entitling the assessee to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5. The Gujarat High Court decision, followed in E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, had not been challenged further and is conclusive and final. A sale to a 100% EOU is virtually in the nature of export, since such a unit cannot sell its products in the local market and is obliged to export its entire production. Export takes into its fold deemed export as well, and no distinction can be drawn between export and deemed export. BAPL Industries Ltd. examined the vires of the CBEC Circular vis-a-vis export and deemed export in the context of the EXIM Policy. That is an altogether different dispute from the present one, and the decision was distinguished by both the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts – Denial of refund as upheld in the impugned common order cannot be sustained, the same is set aside, and the appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law [Read less]

2026-VIL-1775-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Extended Period of Limitation under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 for Non-Deposit of Service Tax Collected from Flat Buyers - Appellant, a builder of residential complexes, obtained registration late and filed no returns until investigation began, collected service tax from flat buyers without depositing it, and made a declaration under VCES which excluded the landowners' share and was not accepted - First show cause notice invoked the extended period on the grounds of non-payment, belated registration and suppression, while Appellant contended that the particulars were in its books and the VCES declaration showed bona fides - Whether the extended period was validly invoked and the entire demand is time barred - HELD - Suppression contemplates deliberate withholding of material facts, ordinarily with intent to evade tax, and mere inadvertence or bona fide interpretation is not suppression. Having collected service tax from buyers, the Appellant was bound by Section 73A to deposit it forthwith and to disclose the transactions and tax collected in its returns. Failure to do so is not a neutral omission but concealment of material particulars. Maintenance of books does not discharge the separate obligation to disclose in returns, and subsequent access to records during investigation does not cure the earlier non-disclosure. Nizam Sugar Factory does not apply to a first show cause notice. VCES is a voluntary disclosure scheme and not a certificate of compliance. Financial hardship is untenable since the Appellant was only required to remit tax already collected, and under Section 80 a bald plea cannot discharge the burden of proving reasonable cause. A contention that tax was not leviable before 01.07.2010 is a mixed question of fact and law not raised before the original authority - The plea that the first show cause notice is wholly time barred is prima facie not sustained, and the matter is remanded for fresh determination of taxability, valuation and limitation on evidence, with verification of challan payments - Taxability and Valuation of Landowners' Share under Joint Development Agreements - Appellant constructed residential complexes under agreements with landowners, under which the constructed area was shared between the developer and the landowners - Appellant contended that no monetary consideration was paid, that the parties were co-developers, and that tax on the landowners' share would amount to double taxation - Respondent contended that land or development rights were transferred against constructed flats as non-monetary consideration, to be valued with reference to the price of similar flats - Whether the landowners' share is liable to service tax and how it is to be valued - HELD - The agreements were not produced, and the nature of the transaction is to be determined from the contractual terms, the rights and obligations of the parties and the consideration flowing between them, and not from nomenclature - A genuine joint venture is distinct from a collaboration agreement under which a builder constructs in return for land or development rights. Absence of monetary consideration does not exclude a transaction from Section 67. Where the arrangement is a taxable construction service, the value is determined under Section 67 and Rule 3 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. Valuation arises only after taxability is established and cannot override an applicable exclusion - The landowners' share cannot be excluded merely because the consideration is non-monetary, but its taxability and value are to be determined by the adjudicating authority from the agreements, the applicable period and the comparable flats, after verifying duplication of taxable value - Construction of Residential Complex Service or Works Contract Service in Developer's Share and Taxability of Builder Services before 01.07.2010 - Appellant contended that its construction activity was a composite works contract, that builder services before 01.07.2010 were not taxable under the Board's circulars, and that the show cause notice cited Section 66E(b) instead of Section 66E(h) - Respondent contended that the Appellant was registered under construction of complex service, produced no contracts, and that classification is immaterial in the negative-list regime - Whether the activity is taxable as construction of residential complex service or is a works contract, and whether the notice is defective - HELD - The law on construction services by a builder or developer before 01.07.2010 has been settled in favour of builders by Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST, Circular No. 151/1/2012-ST and various Tribunal decisions. Jain Housing does not establish a blanket exemption for every joint development agreement, and the provisions applicable from 01.07.2010 are to be examined separately. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. distinguishes a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods from a contract for service simpliciter, and registration under a particular category does not establish the correct classification. Following Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd., an indivisible composite contract cannot be taxed as construction of complex service. Classification does not cease to be material from 01.07.2012, since the declared service of works contract in Section 66E(h) remains relevant. The abatement granted towards material costs does not establish a works contract, and the Appellant must show from the contracts that property in goods is transferred. Mere citation of an incorrect statutory provision does not invalidate the notice where the authority was competent and the demand is otherwise sustainable, as held in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India. The admission of the Managing Director establishes collection and non-payment of tax but cannot determine classification - The developer's share is to be examined from the agreements to determine whether it is service simpliciter or a composite works contract, and the liability is to be quantified under the provision applicable to the relevant period - Reverse Charge Liability on Goods Transport Agency Service - Demand was based on ledger entries of transport payments and the statement of the Managing Director, while Appellant contended that no consignment notes were produced and the transporter was not identified as a goods transport agency - Respondent relied on M.L. Agro Products Ltd. and Bharathi Soap Works for the proposition that a document accompanying the goods can be a consignment note - Whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge on goods transport agency service - HELD - The statutory definition of goods transport agency during the relevant period required a person providing service in relation to transport of goods by road and issuing a consignment note, by whatever name called. The existence of a consignment note or a document satisfying the statutory requirement is a relevant jurisdictional fact. The Revenue cannot substitute the statutory requirement by observing that freight must necessarily have been paid against some document - The demand is set aside and remanded for re-examination of whether the transporter was a goods transport agency and whether the service fell within the reverse-charge notification - Reverse Charge Liability on Security, Manpower Supply and Legal Services - Appellant contended that security services were received from agencies which had been paid including service tax, that workers were directly employed and paid wages under its supervision, and that the recipient of legal service was not shown to be a legal professional - Respondent relied on ledger entries and the statement of the Managing Director - Whether the Appellant is liable under reverse charge on security, manpower supply and legal services - HELD - On security service, the adjudicating authority must determine whether the providers fell within the class specified in Notificatio [Read less]

2026-VIL-106-SC | Supreme Court VAT

Limitation Act, 1963 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Limitation for appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 62 of IBC, 2016 - Commencement of limitation from pronouncement or from receipt of certified copy - Appellant filed the appeal under Section 62 of the IBC against the judgment of the NCLAT, which confirmed the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT, and the Appeal was filed on the 111th day from the date of pronouncement - Respondent raised a preliminary objection on limitation - Whether the Appeal is within the period of limitation under Section 62 of the IBC - HELD - The IBC is an exhaustive, self-contained code, and Section 238-A applies the Limitation Act, 1963 only as far as may be. The Section 62 provides a limitation period of 45 days extendable by a discretionary condonable period of up to 15 days, which creates an absolute outer ceiling of 60 days. The expression from the date of receipt of the order in Section 62(1) cannot be read as the date on which a party chooses to apply for and collect a certified copy. Such a reading would make the limitation period fluctuating and indefinite and would render Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act redundant - For an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 impose an affirmative obligation on the Appellant to apply for and produce a certified copy. Under Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, limitation commences on the date of pronouncement. Under Section 12(2) only the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy is excluded, and under the Explanation to Section 12 the period of inaction before applying for the copy cannot be excluded. The Appellant applied for the certified copy on the 35th day, and the time requisite for obtaining it stands excluded. After receipt of the copy, the Appellant took a further 41 days to file, so the actionable period totalled 76 days against the absolute ceiling of 60 days. The Appeal was thus filed 16 days beyond the outer limit within which delay can be condoned - The preliminary objection is sustained. The appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation [Read less]

2026-VIL-1193-CAL | High Court SGST

GST - Denial of Input Tax Credit for belated filing of returns - Eligibility to Input Tax Credit under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 for Financial Year 2019-20 where returns are filed up to 30.11.2021 - During the pendency of the writ petition, the Electronic Credit Ledger of the Petitioner was blocked, and an amount was debited towards recovery of the disputed demand without prior intimation or an opportunity of being heard - Whether the Petitioner can be denied the benefit of sub-section (5) of Section 16 inserted retrospectively from 1st July, 2017 and is eligible to input tax credit where the returns were filed u... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1191-CAL | High Court SGST

GST - Validity of ex parte adjudication order confirming demand despite reply filed to show cause notice - Petitioner challenged the show cause notice and the consequential order confirming the demand of tax and penalty, contending that despite filing a reply uploaded on the common portal, the Adjudicating Authority observed that no reply was filed and found that ample opportunities of personal hearing were given - Whether the order confirming the demand, passed ex parte on the finding that no reply was filed, can be sustained - HELD - The reply to the notice was filed and uploaded on the common portal, as evident from the record. The Adjudicating Authority arrived at an erroneous finding that no reply was filed and passed an ex parte order confirming the demand without considering the reply - The impugned order is quashed and set aside, the Respondent is directed to revisit the issue by considering the reply and to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording personal hearing - The writ petition is disposed of - Negative blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger and cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Registration of the Petitioner was cancelled for non-filing of returns for six months, and the Electronic Credit Ledger was made inoperative on the basis of an investigation for availment of inadmissible ITC, though no order for negative blocking was passed - Whether the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger and the cancellation of registration can be sustained - HELD - The decision of the authority, including blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger negatively, is dehors the mandate of the settled principles of law. The Supreme Court in Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Kings Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. observed that the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot be negatively blocked for wrongful availment of ITC – The Rule 86A(1) of the CGST Rules does not contemplate an order requiring a taxpayer to replenish the Electronic Credit Ledger to the extent of ITC used in the past, as it would amount to an order for recovery of tax - The Adjudicating Authority is directed to consider the non-filing of returns and the negative blocking in the light of these judgments, and upon being satisfied to revoke the cancellation and unlock the Electronic Credit Ledger, without debarring action in accordance with law if the Petitioner is found to have committed the offence - The writ petition is disposed of. [Read less]

2026-VIL-209-GSTAT-DEL-PB | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of Unutilised Input Tax Credit on Export of Services - Services Rendered to Foreign Group Entity as Sub-Contractor not Intermediary Services under Section 2(13) of IGST Act, 2017 - Appellant, an Indian subsidiary, provided marketing support services and IT enabled services to its Australian parent under a Master Services Agreement on a cost-plus basis, receiving consideration in convertible foreign exchange - Refund claims for several periods under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act were rejected on the ground that the services were intermediary services - Whether the services rendered by the Appellant qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act or fall within intermediary services under Section 2(13) - HELD - An intermediary requires a minimum of three parties and two distinct supplies, namely the main supply and an ancillary supply of arranging or facilitating it. The Appellant is not a broker or agent, has no authority to bind the principal, and the expression any other person by whatever name called must be read on the principle of ejusdem generis - The agreements expressly provide that the Appellant is an independent contractor and not an agent, and it has no contract with the partner universities or the advisors. A person who supplies services on his own account is excluded from the definition, and as per Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST sub-contracting for a service is not an intermediary service - The Appellant supplies the main service to its principal on a principal-to-principal basis. This view is consistent with the various High Court judgments. The rulings of Advance Ruling Authorities relied on by the Revenue are not binding as they are not courts of record, and the High Court judgments are followed - The services therefore qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act - The orders of the First Appellate Authority are set aside, and the Respondent is directed to refund the unutilised input tax credit along with interest – Ordered accordingly - Power of First Appellate Authority to annul order and direct reconsideration - Bar on Remand under Section 107(11) of CGST Act, 2017 - The Revenue appealed against an order of the FAA which held the refund order incorrect but, instead of allowing the appeal, annulled the order of the proper officer and directed him to reconsider the matter in light of High Court orders - Revenue contended that this was a remand in violation of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act - Whether the order annulling the Order-in-Original and asking the officer to reconsider is in fact a remand order prohibited by law - HELD - Section 107(11) empowers the Appellate Authority to pass such order as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against, but expressly provides that it shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the order. A plain reading shows that the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to annul an order but cannot direct reconsideration by the authorised officer. Where a specific type of order is expressly prohibited by statute, the Appellate Authority cannot circumvent the bar by a choice of words and pass an order which in substance is a remand order - The Revenue appeal is allowed to that extent, and the matter is remanded to the FAA to decide it on merits in accordance with the principles laid down by the Tribunal. [Read less]

2026-VIL-212-GSTAT-PYG | Tribunal SGST

GST - Demand on Mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B - Availment in Subsequent Year of Input Tax Credit Omitted in Previous Financial Year under Section 16(4) read with Section 39(9) of CGST Act, 2017 - Appellant claimed input tax credit in GSTR-3B for April 2019 that exceeded the credit auto-populated in GSTR-2A for that month, and the proper officer raised a demand with interest and penalty under Section 73 - Whether the credit pertaining to inward supplies of the previous financial year was available and could be availed in GSTR-3B for April 2019 - HELD - The Appellant furnished the details of each supply along with tax invoices, e-way bills, bilty and GSTR-2A extracts, the inward supplies were genuine, were received in the previous financial year and that the total credit was correct. A minor error in describing the month of one supply could be reconciled from the documents and does not justify denial of credit. The Appellant held excess unutilised credit in the previous year, which corroborates the claim - Section 39(9) permits rectification of omissions before the due date of the September return of the following financial year, provided the omission was not discovered through scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement, and the claim was made before any such activity. Under Section 16(4) the credit was claimed before the due date for the September return. GSTR-2A is a facilitation document that does not impact the ability to avail credit on self-assessment under Section 16, and the condition in Section 16(2)(aa) was inserted with effect from 01.01.2022 and does not apply to the disputed period. A mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot by itself be a ground for reversal of credit when the claim is fully verified. A later notice under Section 61 on the same mismatch was also dropped as the reply was found satisfactory - The Appellant was legally entitled to avail and utilise the credit in GSTR-3B for April 2019, and the demand is struck off – The appeal is allowed - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in Adjudication and Appeal - Notices Uploaded in Additional Notices and Orders Tab, No Date of Hearing under Section 75(4), Order Passed on Undisclosed Date and Non-Speaking Order under Section 107(12) of CGST Act, 2017 - Notice under Section 73 and its reminder were uploaded in the Additional Notices and Orders tab of the portal, with the columns for date, time and venue of hearing marked NA - Appellant did not reply or appear, and the proper officer passed the order on the date fixed for reply - First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on a later date, observing that the Appellant was absent and the order had no infirmity - Whether the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice - HELD - The Revenue did not dispute that a primary tab for Notices and Orders existed, and no material supported the contention that taxpayers were aware of the practice of uploading notices in the secondary tab – The service of notices at both stages was not proper, and this amounted to denial of opportunity of hearing. Section 75(4) requires a hearing where any adverse decision is contemplated, and it prescribes two independent requirements, one of a written reply and the other of an oral hearing. Failure to avail one does not lead to denial of the other. The proper officer was therefore obliged to fix a date of hearing, which was not done. Both authorities proceeded ex parte and passed orders on later dates that were neither fixed nor communicated - The authority must either pass the order on the date fixed or fix and communicate another date, failing which the ex parte nature is forced on the taxpayer and natural justice is breached - Both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal are set aside, the demand with interest and penalty is struck off. [Read less]

2026-VIL-210-GSTAT-VSK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of unutilised ITC distributed through Input Service Distributor to SEZ unit making zero-rated exports – Appellant-SEZ unit exporting goods without payment of integrated tax, received ITC distributed through an Input Service Distributor which remained unutilised - Refund claims were rejected on the ground that, being the recipient of supplies to an SEZ unit, only the supplier could claim refund under Rule 89 of the CGST Rules - Whether an SEZ unit making zero-rated exports is entitled to refund of unutilised ITC distributed through an Input Service Distributor - HELD - The claim of the Appellant is not founded merely on its status as recipient of supplies to an SEZ unit but arises from unutilised ITC validly distributed through the Input Service Distributor and attributable to its own zero-rated exports. Section 16(1) of the IGST Act treats exports and supplies to an SEZ unit as distinct categories of zero-rated supply, and Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(4) provides the framework for refund of unutilised ITC on zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax. The second proviso to Rule 89(1) addresses direct supplies to an SEZ unit or developer and cannot be extended to every claim of an SEZ unit, as a procedural rule cannot be applied mechanically to defeat substantive entitlement - The Revenue failed to show any provision extinguishing the entitlement or that the suppliers could claim refund of credit already distributed through the Input Service Distributor. The principle in Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, SE Forge Ltd. v. Union of India and Wipro Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner applies squarely. The refund remains subject to verification of eligible ITC and statutory conditions - The impugned orders are set aside, the matters are remitted to the proper officer for quantifying and sanctioning the admissible refund - The appeals are allowed - GST - Rejection of refund on unsubstantiated allegation of prior refund to suppliers and violation of natural justice - First Appellate Authority observed, on the basis of departmental back-office records, that the suppliers had already received refund, though the allegation was not put to the Appellant and the Revenue admitted before the Tribunal that no evidence was available on record - Whether the finding can be sustained as a ground for rejecting the refund claims - HELD - A finding adverse to the entitlement of a taxpayer to refund must be founded on relevant material and reached after a reasonable opportunity to rebut. A reference to back-office records, without disclosure of the underlying material, cannot establish that a corresponding refund was sanctioned. The mere filing of a refund application by a supplier does not prove that the refund was sanctioned or related to the very credit in dispute. The possibility of double refund and proof of double refund are different matters, as the former may justify verification while the latter requires evidence - The doctrine of audi alteram partem requires notice with an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order - The finding is unsustainable and cannot be a ground for rejection, though double refund is not permitted, and any proposed exclusion must be supported by cogent documentary evidence after giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity to respond - The appeals are allowed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-211-GSTAT-VSK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of interest paid on tax discharged through electronic credit ledger in view of retrospective amendment to Section 50(1) of the CGST Act - Appellant filed returns belatedly, discharged tax partly through the electronic credit ledger and partly through the electronic cash ledger, and paid interest on the entire tax liability – The refund claim of excess interest was rejected as premature since no notification bringing the amendment into force was available - Whether the Appellant is entitled to refund of interest paid on the portion of tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger after the substituted proviso to Section 50(1) - HELD - Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2021 substituted the proviso to Section 50(1) and expressly declared that it shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 1st July, 2017. The amendment operates retrospectively and not merely from the date of its notification, and interest is leviable only on that portion of tax which is paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger, subject to the conditions in the proviso. The Notification merely appointed the date of commencement and did not alter the retrospective declaration by Parliament. The earlier voluntary payment of interest cannot validate an amount not legally payable, and the reasoning that the claim could not be considered for want of a notification is unsustainable, particularly in view of the administrative instructions of the Board to recover interest only on the net cash tax liability - The Appellant is entitled to have its claim considered in accordance with the retrospective amendment, the competent authority shall verify the interest paid and the portion attributable to tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger - The appeal is allowed - Rejection of refund claim on a fresh ground of limitation under Section 54 without notice and without considering exclusion of period under Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax - First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation, though this was not the ground of rejection by the original authority, and the Appellant was neither put to notice nor given an opportunity to make submissions - Whether the finding on limitation can be sustained, and whether the matter should be remanded - HELD - When an appellate authority proposes to decide a matter on a ground not put to the affected party, reasonable notice and an effective opportunity to meet that ground must be afforded - The doctrine of audi alteram partem requires notice with an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order - The Authorised Representative of the Respondent admitted that no notice on limitation was issued. Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax issued under Section 168A excludes the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 for computing limitation for refund applications under Section 54 or 55, and limitation must be freshly worked out after this exclusion - The notification does not dispense with the requirement of satisfying limitation, and an open-ended remand is not warranted as the controversy can be determined on the statutory provisions and the record - The finding on limitation is unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside, the competent authority shall recompute limitation after giving effect to the exclusion and quantify the eligible refund after affording the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard - The appeal is allowed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-213-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of Accumulated Input Tax Credit on Export of Goods without Payment of Tax under Section 54(3)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Treatment of Credit Notes Issued under Section 34 in Adjusted Total Turnover under Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Respondent exporting tea without payment of tax claimed refund of accumulated input tax credit for six months - The original authority sanctioned a part of the claim and rejected the rest - The First Appellate Authority allowed the Respondent's appeal after excluding credit notes issued during the period from the turnover for refund calculation - Whether credit notes issued und... [Read more]

2026-VIL-1759-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of Royalty received by partners from partnership firm for use of trade mark - Appellants were partners of a partnership firm engaged in manufacture of Biri and co-owners of the registered trade mark used by the firm, and the Royalty was accounted as expenditure in the Profit and Loss account with the net profit shared in the same proportion - Show Cause Notice alleged that the profit sharing of Royalty amounts to Intellectual Property Service, and the demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether Royalty received by the partners from the partnership firm for use of the trade mark owned by them is liable to service tax - HELD - The trade mark is an individual asset of each of the partners, which they have deployed to generate profit for the business. This is not a case where a third party holding the trade mark has lent the same and has charged Royalty for the same. When the partner allows his assets to be used by the partnership firm, there arises no case of client - service provider relationship, and the same amounts to self-service by the partner for the partnership firm. Whatever a partner does for the furtherance of the business of the partnership, he does so only for advancing his own interest, and no consideration is fixed as a quid pro quo for any particular service. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Mumbai Bench, which echoes the Apex Court's decision that a partnership firm is only a compendium of its partners, there is complete absence of service provider vis-à-vis service receiver relationship - The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.rnrn^Invocation of extended period of limitation on Royalty received by partners from partnership firm - Royalty was properly reflected in the Profit and Loss account, and the demand was confirmed for the extended period - Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable against the Appellants in the absence of suppression - HELD - The Appellants would have carried a bonafide belief that since they were recovering Royalty charges from the partnership firm, there is absence of service provider - client relationship, and the Revenue has failed to make out any case of suppression. Further, if service tax was payable by the Appellants individually, the same would accrue to the partnership firm itself as Cenvat Credit for payment of Excise Duty on its finished goods, and hence there cannot be any intent to evade service tax payment - The confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable and is set aside on account of time bar also. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1185-GUJ | High Court SGST

GST - Services provided by Head Office to branch offices as distinct persons - Non-adoption of cross-charging - Valuation under Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017 where no invoice is issued – Petitioner held ISD registration for its Head Office and separate registrations for branches outside the State. It incurred common corporate expenses and salaries at the Head Office without allocating them to branches by cross-charging, and all expenses were recorded in its books of account - Revenue demanded IGST under Section 74 of the CGST Act on the footing that the services were supplied to distinct persons under Section 25(4) - Whether tax is payable on common expenditure and salaries incurred at the Head Office merely because cross-charging to branches was not adopted, when no tax invoice was issued - HELD - Under Section 25(4) and (5), entities with different registrations are distinct persons, and Entry 2 of Schedule I read with Rule 28 brings supplies between distinct persons into the net of GST. However, the Circulars dated 17.07.2023 and 26.06.2024 clarify that where full input tax credit is available to the branch and the Head Office has not issued a tax invoice, the value of such services may be deemed to be declared as 'Nil' and treated as open market value under the second proviso to Rule 28. Since it was not disputed that no tax invoices were issued, the value of the services is required to be treated as 'Nil' and no tax liability arises - The adjudicating authority referred to the Circulars cursorily and brushed them aside, which shows non-application of mind. The authorities cannot determine the value on a proportionate basis merely because cross-charging was not adopted. The services are input services and the tax paid by the Head Office would be available as credit to the branches under Section 16(1) - The demand is not sustainable on this ground. The petition is allowedrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Invocation of extended period under Section 74 - Requirement of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - The extended period was invoked against the Petitioner on the basis of an investigation by the Directorate, on the allegation that without the investigation the facts relating to evasion would not have been known and that the Petitioner deliberately did not adopt cross-charging - Whether Section 74 could be invoked against the Petitioner for not adopting cross-charging - HELD - Except for the observation based on the investigation, nothing was recorded in the show-cause notice or the order-in-original to satisfy the ingredients of Section 74 - Mere exhuming of information by the Directorate without forming any opinion cannot attract Section 74. Even if cross-charging had been adopted, the tax could have been paid by utilising the credit available at the Head Office and the same would have been available as credit to the branches, so the situation would be revenue-neutral. Since the expenditure was recorded in the books, the authorities were aware of the functioning of the Petitioner. Mere failure to adopt cross-charging does not lead to the conclusion of wilful or fraudulent evasion or suppression with intent to evade tax - Section 74 was mechanically invoked without non-application of mind being excluded, the order-in-original is quashed and set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-206-GSTAT-BLR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Amendment of registration - Addition of godown as additional place of business - Pending civil dispute on title - Appellant applied under Section 28 of CGST Act read with Rule 19 of CGST Rules to add a rented godown as an additional place of business. The Proper Officer rejected the application only because the ownership of the premises - The constitution of the lessor firm, were the subject of civil suits pending between other persons, and the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal - Whether the Proper Officer may reject an application to add an additional place of business only because title to the premises or the constitution of the lessor firm is the subject of a pending civil dispute - HELD - Section 2(85) defines place of business by what is done at a place, such as carrying on business, storing goods or maintaining books, and it says nothing about who owns the place. Rule 19(2) permits rejection only where the amendment is not warranted or the documents furnished are incomplete or incorrect. An amendment is not 'not warranted' merely because persons other than the applicant are litigating about ownership of the building. A registration certificate has no effect on title, and the Proper Officer has no machinery to decide title, so making the outcome of a title suit a condition for recording a place of business adds a condition which Rule 19 does not contain. If a pending dispute were sufficient, a tenant could never record a godown for years, although the goods would still be stored there, which is the reverse of what Section 28 and Rule 19 are meant to secure. An admission that litigation exists is not an admission of the case of the other side - The Proper Officer cannot reject the application only because title is under civil dispute or undecided. The orders below are set aside and the application is remitted for fresh decision.rnrn rnrnIssue 2: Documents required for adding rented premises as additional place of business - Appellant uploaded a lease deed executed by the present partners of the lessor firm and an electricity bill of the lessor. The authorities below demanded conclusive documents of legal ownership, and the Proper Officer relied on pendency of civil suits without examining the documents - What documents the law requires for adding rented premises as an additional place of business, and whether the authorities below decided the application on those requirements - HELD - For rented premises, Form GST REG-01 requires a valid rent or lease agreement with any one document in support of the lessor's ownership, such as a property tax receipt, municipal khata copy or electricity bill, and where the agreement is not registered, the identity proof of the lessor. The list does not require proof of the lessor's title against all comers, and no documents beyond the list may be sought. The Proper Officer must decide on the face of the deed and the law whether it is a valid lease agreement, and cannot discard it as provisional only because the civil suit is pending. The original of the deed lying in the custody of the civil court cannot be insisted upon, and a certified copy will serve the purpose of verification. Whether the electricity bill relates to the godown is a question of fact for the Proper Officer to verify. Neither authority below decided the application on these requirements, and the order of rejection must stand or fall on the grounds mentioned in it - The matter is for the Proper Officer to decide afresh on the statutory requirements, the prescribed documents and verification of the place.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Third party complaints, pending civil suits and decision of High Court on rival claimants - Rejection of amendment of registration - The Proper Officer relied on complaints by a person claiming joint ownership, pendency of two civil suits and a decision of the High Court holding that registration should not be granted where premises are in dispute between rival claimants - Whether the complaints, the pending suits and the said decision justify rejection of the application - HELD - The Proper Officer is entitled to receive information from any person and to verify it, but information is a reason to verify and not a reason to reject. The verification found only that title is in dispute in the civil courts, which is not a ground under Rule 19. The pendency of the suits is not a reason to refuse to record where the Appellant stores its goods, as the civil courts will decide their effect and the registration will have to follow that decision. The decision relied upon by the Revenue concerned two persons each claiming the right to run the same business from the same premises, and the authority was asked to choose between them. Here no one other than the Appellant seeks registration for the godown or claims to trade from it, so the decision does not govern these facts. Any third party representation relied upon must be put to the Appellant with an opportunity to answer it - The complaints and pending suits do not justify rejection. The Proper Officer shall not reject the application on the ground of pendency of any proceeding.rnrn rnrnIssue 4: Order of first Appellate Authority - Reliance on material not put to the party and failure to give reasons - The FAA relied upon a letter received from a third party after the hearing, without giving a copy to the Appellant - The order was headed 'Interim Order' though it finally dismissed the appeal. The Appellant prayed for a direction to approve the amendment - Whether the order is a reasoned order in keeping with the principles of natural justice, and what relief should follow - HELD - An authority must not use material against a party without giving that party an opportunity to rebut it, and a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons showing a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached - The order held that GST authorities cannot decide ownership, yet made a decision on ownership the condition of registration. It also ignored the material contentions and documents of the Appellant, and repeated material from earlier proceedings without noticing that the partners had appeared and a written reply had been filed in the present proceedings. The heading 'Interim Order' is a slip which does not by itself vitiate an order, as the substance is looked at - The Tribunal cannot direct approval, since Rule 19(1) entrusts due verification to the Proper Officer, who has not carried it out, and the record raises questions of fact which only he can verify. Under Section 113(1), the remand is to be limited to the statutory requirements and not at large - The orders below are set aside and the application is remitted to the Proper Officer for a fresh speaking decision within the time fixed, with no finding on title or on the merits of the civil proceedings. [Read less]

2026-VIL-206-GSTAT-BLR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-198-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under inverted tax structure where principal input and output fall under same HSN - Respondent was engaged in manufacture of crushed stone and stone aggregates from boulders and river bed material, and both the principal input and the final output fell under the same HSN attracting the same rate of tax - Respondent also used other inputs such as screening plant spare parts, crusher plant spare parts, vehicle parts, tyres and lubricants, which attracted higher rates of tax. The original authority sanctioned the refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and the first Appellate Authority rejected the Revenue's appeal - Whether the Respondent is entitled to refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act when the principal input and the output are classified under the same HSN and attract the same rate of tax - HELD - Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund where credit has accumulated because the rate of tax on inputs is higher than the rate of tax on output supplies. The legislature consciously used the expression 'inputs' in plural and made no distinction between principal input and ancillary inputs, so reading such a restriction into the statute would not meet the ends of justice - The term 'input' under Section 2(59) has a broad meaning and includes all goods, other than capital goods, used in the course or furtherance of business. The principal input and the output may appear similar, but they are fundamentally different in nature as the final product undergoes a complex transformation involving several stages, processes and resources. Since the Respondent also utilised various other inputs attracting a higher rate of tax than the output, the principal input cannot be compared with the principal output alone - The Revenue's argument that input and output are the same has no force, the Respondent is eligible for refund under inverted tax structure – The Revenue's appeal is dismissedrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Applicability of CBIC Circulars on refund of accumulated ITC where input and output are the same - Refund of accumulated ITC under inverted tax structure was sanctioned to the Respondent, and the Revenue (Appellant) relied on para 3.2 of the Circular dated 31.03.2020 and on the later Circular clarifying it, to contend that refund is barred where input and output supplies are the same - Whether the said Circulars are applicable to the facts of the case and can deny the refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act - HELD - Para 3 of the first Circular is headed 'Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of reduction in GST Rate', and the words 'though attracting different tax rates at different points in time' show that it applies only where the same goods attract different rates of tax at different points of time - In the present case, the raw material and the processed product attract the same rate of tax, so the issue is entirely different and the Circular is not applicable. Further, the Board's power under Section 168(1) is confined to issuing directions for uniformity in implementation of the Act. The Board can neither add to the provisions of the Act nor curtail the import of any part of the enactment, and a refund admissible under the Act cannot be denied by virtue of a circular. The later Circular is clarificatory in nature and applies to supplies made under a concessional notification, so once the principal Circular is not applicable, the clarificatory Circular is also not applicable - The Revenue's reliance on the Circulars is incorrect, the order of the first Appellate Authority is not interfered - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-1190-DEL | High Court SGST

GST - Pre-deposit for maintaining appeal under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Demand towards penalty alone - Show Cause Notice issued prior to the amendment effective from 01.10.2025 - Petitioner assailed the Show Cause Notice, the Order-in-Original and the rectification order for the Financial Year 2018-2019, which culminated in the imposition of penalty - Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Gaurav Jain in relation to the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) - HELD - Having regard to the nature of the liability imposed upon the Petitioner, namely a demand towards penalty alone, and the fact that the SCN was issued prior to the amendment which came into effect on 01.10.2025, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Gaurav Jain. The requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining the statutory appeal shall accordingly be governed by the principles laid down in the said judgment. The finding is confined to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act - The Writ Petition is disposed of - Service of adjudication order and limitation for filing appeal - Relegation to statutory appellate remedy - Petitioner contended that it acquired knowledge of the Order-in-Original only on a later date upon accessing the GST portal - Whether the validity of service, the date of communication and the computation of limitation can be examined in the writ petition despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal - HELD - It is not in dispute that a statutory remedy of appeal is available. The rival contentions on the modes of service, the material in support of service, the date of knowledge, the effect of uploading the omitted pages and the computation of limitation can appropriately be examined by the competent Appellate Authority. The applicability of Luxmi Traders would have to be considered in the context of the actual mode of service adopted, in view of the specific assertion of the Respondents that the order was sent through the GST portal as well as by e-mail and Speed Post. No conclusive finding is returned on these questions, and the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all legally available grounds, the Appellate Authority shall consider it in accordance with law - The Writ Petition is disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-1192-KAR | High Court SGST

GST - Adjudication order passed in the absence of the Petitioner - Another opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice - Petitioner contended that the communications were issued to e-mail addresses of the staff of its auditor that changed from time to time and therefore had no effective knowledge of the proceedings - Whether the Petitioner must be given another opportunity before there can be a demand in terms of the impugned adjudication order - HELD - The reasons assigned for non-participation and the Petitioner's case on merits persuade the Court that the Petitioner must have another opportunity before there can be ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-208-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Penalty on Undeclared Goods Found in Transit - Applicability of Maruti Enterprises to goods claimed to be destined outside the State - Physical verification revealed a substantial quantity of makeup accessories and other goods for which no invoice, bilty or e-way bill was produced - Notice in Form MOV-07 was issued, and about a week later an advocate produced additional bilties and invoices claiming that the goods were moving from Delhi to Gwalior - The Mobile Squad Officer declined the documents because neither the buyers nor the sellers appeared, and no registration particulars or other evidence of identity or genuineness was furnished - Appellant contended that the second bundle of documents was inadvertently not produced at interception, and that the transit State officer had no jurisdiction in view of Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. - Whether the additional invoices and bilties produced long after interception established the genuineness of transportation, and whether the principle laid down in Maruti Enterprises applies to the facts of the case - HELD - The mere assertion that documents were available in a separate bundle does not establish that the goods found during physical verification were covered by those documents – Further, the absence of buyers and sellers by itself may not invariably be sufficient to reject a transaction. However, when it is considered together with non-production of documents at interception, delayed submission of additional documents, failure to establish identity and business credentials, discrepancies in multiple invoices of small individual values and absence of any person claiming ownership, the circumstances collectively cast serious doubt on the explanation offered - Appellant failed to establish a reliable documentary link between the additional documents and the goods found undeclared. Maruti Enterprises case, which holds that officers of a transit State are empowered only to intercept and verify goods and to intimate the origin or destination State, is distinguishable. In that case the relevant documents were available at the time of transportation, the buyers and sellers were registered dealers who acknowledged the transactions, and the destination outside the State was identifiable. In the present case, the goods were totally undeclared, and transportation of undeclared goods through a transit State may cause a tax effect in that State - Appellant cannot claim the benefit of an out-of-State destination without first establishing the factual basis of that claim bona fide - The second appeal is dismissed and the order of the FAA affirming the penalty is upheld [Read less]

2026-VIL-1183-TEL | High Court SGST

GST - Jurisdiction of officer to issue show-cause notice and adjudicate penalty proceedings under Section 122 - Proper officer for imposing penalties - Section 160 of CGST Act - Petitioner was subjected to investigation for issuing invoices without actual supply of goods. A show-cause notice was issued by the Additional Director of the investigating Directorate, and the Joint Commissioner passed the order-in-original imposing penalties under Sections 122 and 125. Both were issued prior to the Board's Circular assigning the functions of proper officer under Section 122 - Petitioner contended that no proper officer was assig... [Read more]

2026-VIL-199-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

GST - Transitional credit under Section 140(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - Excess credit claimed in Table 5(a) of TRAN-1 over the closing balance in the last return under the existing law - Taxpayer explained that input service credit was inadvertently not reported and that the revised return was not accepted by the portal - Adjudicating Authority held the excess credit ineligible - The first appellate authority allowed the appeal on the footing of a procedural lapse - Whether the difference in transitional credit requires verification and the first appellate order can be sustained - HELD - It was undisputed that the credit shown in Table 5(a) of TRAN-1 exceeded the closing balance of CENVAT credit as per the ER-1 and ST-3 returns filed under the existing law. The difference requires thorough verification by the authorities concerned. The Respondent is directed to produce all relevant records without delay - The case is remanded to the Proper Officer/Adjudicating Authority only for this limited purpose, to pass a reasoned order on the basis of the verification.rnrn rnrnGST - Section 74(1) of CGST Act - Invocation of extended period on allegation of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts - Taxpayer filed the TRAN-1 return more than once and informed the department of the mistake later - Adjudicating Authority held that the taxpayer wilfully suppressed information with mala fide intention to evade payment of tax - Whether notice under Section 74(1) is sustainable - HELD - Mere wrong or incorrect information does not, ipso facto, establish charges of wilful mis-statement. Section 74(1) can be invoked only where there is fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade tax, as stated in Instruction No. 05/2023-GST. Such evidence should also be made a part of the show cause notice. Suppression of facts must be construed strictly and cannot be equated with ordinary non-declaration. It does not mean any omission, and the act must be deliberate and wilful to evade payment. Applying the ratio of the Tribunal's earlier decision in Power Tech Global, the charges of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts were not established - The notice issued under Section 74(1) is not sustainable. [Read less]

2026-VIL-203-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - Plea of non-service of MOV-07 - Appellant challenged the order imposing tax and penalty under Section 129 for goods carried without an e-way bill and submitted at the final hearing that MOV-07 was not served - Appellant had submitted a written representation seeking rejection of the notice and release of the vehicle - MOV-05 recorded service of MOV-07 on the person in charge - Whether the plea of non-service of MOV-07 is sustainable in view of Section 160(2) - HELD - The appeal papers acknowledged issuance of a notice preceding the demand and described the Appellant's letter as a reply seeking rejection of that notice. MOV-05 recorded service of MOV-07 on the person in charge, and MOV-09 also recorded the date of service. These recitals, corroborated by the Appellant's own pleading and its contemporaneous letter, establish issuance of the original notice and that the Appellant acted upon it - Absence of MOV-07 from the appellate record does not outweigh that cumulative evidence. Section 160(2) bars questioning service where the recipient has already acted upon the notice. The finding rests on the notice recitals and the admitted response, not merely on participation, payment for release or a presumed withdrawal. Section 160(2) is not used to supply a notice that never existed. The finding does not affirm the demand or dispense with consideration of the defence and the hearing required by Section 129(4) - The plea of non-service of MOV-07 is rejected and the issue stands concludedrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Detention of goods in transit under Section 129 - Movement without e-way bill - Claim of intra-district movement and subsequent diversion - Supplier issued an invoice to the Appellant for TMT bars giving the destination only as the State, and no e-way bill was generated for that leg - Appellant issued two further invoices to buyers in another State and generated e-way bills for the same vehicle - Vehicle was intercepted before the onward e-way bills were generated - Whether the dispute can be decided finally on the appellate record or calls for a confined remand, and whether intention to evade tax is required for Section 129 - HELD - Rule 138 requires the e-way bill to be generated before commencement of the movement for which it is required, and generation after commencement does not confer retrospective compliance. Delivery on the direction of a third person under Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act does not alter an existing transport instruction or dispense with the e-way bill for the subsequent movement. The place, time and route of interception, the original destination and the stage at which any diversion took effect could not be determined on the record. The original goods receipt was substantially unfilled, the time entry in MOV-09 was altered, and the order in appeal recorded a wrong date, vehicle and section. The first appellate conclusion therefore cannot be affirmed as a concurrent factual finding - Section 129(1) predicates detention on transport in contravention, whereas Sections 130(1)(i) and (iv) expressly refer to intention to evade. The explanation and the nature and seriousness of the breach must still be adjudicated, as penalty is not automatic. Section 107(11) does not authorise the first appellate authority to remand, whereas Section 113(1) empowers the Tribunal to refer the matter to the original adjudicating authority - The order in appeal and MOV-09 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to resume from consideration of the Appellant's representation, on the existing MOV-07 and within the original allegation, without any new allegation or enhanced demand - Appeal partly allowedrnrn rnrnIssue 3: Payment made to secure release of goods under Section 129 - Treatment of amount paid - Appellant paid the tax and penalty demanded after its written representation to obtain release of the goods and conveyance, and thereafter challenged the order in appeal - Whether the payment made for release extinguishes the challenge or amounts to final determination of liability - HELD - Subsequent return filing supports disclosure of the onward invoices but does not erase a transit contravention, if established. Relying on the Supreme Court in ASP Traders, payment to obtain release following written objections neither extinguishes the challenge nor dispenses with a reasoned decision under Section 129(3). The amount paid is not a waiver or final determination of liability. It must be verified and reconciled against the fresh determination without duplication - The amount paid shall be credited against the fresh determination, with consequential adjustment or refund in accordance with law if the demand does not survive. [Read less]

2026-VIL-202-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Section 129(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - Whether intention to evade tax is a pre-condition - Appellant purchased scrap from a supplier in another State and, while the goods were in transit, issued an onward invoice to a buyer for the same goods and vehicle - Vehicle was intercepted and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) was imposed and affirmed in first appeal - Appellant contended that the discrepancies were procedural lapses without intention to evade tax - Whether intention to evade tax is a jurisdictional pre-condition for action under Section 129(1) - HELD - Section 129(1) applies where goods are transported or stored while in transit in contravention of the Act or Rules - Mens rea need not be independently proved for this civil statutory penalty. Penalty is not automatic, because the authority must, consistently with Sections 129(3) and (4), consider the explanation actually offered and give reasons for accepting or rejecting it. Section 126(6) excludes the general penalty disciplines where the Act fixes a sum or percentage - Whether the discrepancy is substantive enough to attract Section 129 must still be decided on the facts and after considering the defence - Intention to evade tax is not an independent jurisdictional pre-condition under Section 129(1), and the alleged contravention must be assessed on its facts.rnrn rnrnIssue 2: Sale of goods during transit - E-way bill requirements under Rules 138 and 138A - Supplier's first e-way bill declared the Appellant's place as the destination and remained valid in time - Appellant issued an onward invoice for direct delivery and generated a second e-way bill showing its own place as the dispatch point although the goods had not reached that place - The second e-way bill had expired before interception, and no extension was shown - Vehicle was intercepted at a location on a different road, and no time-stamped tracking evidence of the route was produced - Whether the first e-way bill covered the diverted movement, whether the second e-way bill corresponded to the actual movement, and whether the defects were merely technical - HELD - Section 10(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 permits an intermediate purchaser to effect an onward supply without first taking physical delivery. It does not deem the destination in an existing e-way bill to have changed or dispense with Rules 138 and 138A. Once the actual destination had changed, the first e-way bill, though alive in time, no longer truthfully represented the destination of the movement being undertaken. The second e-way bill declared a physical dispatch which admittedly did not occur and had expired before interception, and no attempt at extension under Rule 138(10) was shown - An alternative map and the plea of more than one route did not displace the recorded place of interception. Matching goods, quantity and vehicle particulars do not establish continuity of journey without reliable transport evidence. Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST does not treat an expired e-way bill coupled with a materially incorrect dispatch point as a minor discrepancy - The discrepancies, considered cumulatively, are neither isolated nor merely technical and constitute substantive contravention attracting Section 129(1) - Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) is sustained and the appeal is dismissedrnrn rnrnIssue 3: Payment of penalty through DRC-03 to secure release under Section 129(5) - Appellant paid the penalty through DRC-03 so that the goods and vehicle were released and thereafter challenged the order - Whether payment for release amounts to a conclusive admission - HELD - Payment through DRC-03 to secure release does not waive the statutory appeal or constitute a conclusive admission. Section 129(5) deems proceedings in respect of the notice concluded upon payment. As explained by the Supreme Court in ASP Traders, that consequence does not foreclose a reasoned determination or appellate scrutiny where payment secures release while liability remains contested - The appeal is decided only on whether, at interception, the goods were being transported under a valid e-way bill truthfully corresponding to the actual movement. The order was examined on merits and called for no interference. The amount paid shall be credited against the liability without double recovery. [Read less]

2026-VIL-204-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Requirement of e-way bill for intra-State movement - Rule 138(14)(d) - State Notification - Appellant, a manufacturer of beverages, moved goods from one district to another by road on a tax invoice and the transporter's builty without an e-way bill - Appellant pleaded that the movement was intra-State, that it attempted to generate the e-way bill but could not because of a technical issue with the portal, and that dispatch was urgent - Whether an e-way bill was legally required for the movement - HELD - The movement is not outside the e-way bill regime merely because it is intra-State. The State Notification exempted intra-State movement generally but retained the requirement for specified goods, including beverages, moving from one district to another where the consignment value exceeded the prescribed threshold. The notification continued to operate on the date of movement, and prima facie generation of an e-way bill was required. The plea was one of complete non-generation and not of a minor clerical defect. The record contained no contemporaneous portal error, help-desk ticket or complaint, and no material supporting the claimed urgency. The interval of thirty minutes between invoice preparation and removal called for scrutiny but did not itself disprove the claim - The movement was prima facie subject to the e-way bill requirement and the pleaded technical failure and urgency were not established on the record, but the proceedings are not annulled on the footing that no contravention could arise - The appeal stands disposed ofrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Section 129(3) and (4) - Validity of adjudication - Opportunity of hearing and reasoned order - Effect of payment through DRC-03 - MOV-07 allowed seven days to show cause, yet MOV-09 was passed the next day, the copy of MOV-09 carried unselected alternatives and drafting placeholders in the part meant for reasons - Appellant had paid the penalty to secure release of goods and conveyance - Whether the penalty can be sustained on the adjudication actually undertaken under Section 129 - HELD - Section 129(4) prohibits determination of penalty under sub-section (3) without an opportunity of being heard, and the requirement is substantive, not ritualistic. The Supreme Court in ASP Traders held that even where the amount is paid and goods are released, the proper officer must pass a reasoned final order in MOV-09 after granting the hearing and upload the summary in DRC-07, and that payment cannot be treated as waiver. An authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record clear and explicit reasons. MOV-09 did not disclose a clear consideration of the explanation, the documents said to have accompanied the goods or the basis of the final determination, and could not be treated as a completed speaking adjudication. The non-appearance of the Appellant before the Appellate Authority did not convert a non-speaking adjudication into a valid one, as the appellate authority was still required to examine the grounds. The payment cannot be treated as conclusive admission of legal liability - The penalty cannot be sustained on the adjudication actually undertaken, and the order in appeal and MOV-09 are set aside.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Remand under Section 113(1) of CGST Act - Scope of remand in Section 129 proceedings - Defects in the adjudication related to hearing and reasons, while MOV-07 disclosed an intelligible allegation of movement of goods without an e-way bill - Whether the Tribunal should confirm the penalty, annul the proceedings, or remit the matter, and to which authority - HELD - It would not be appropriate to confirm the penalty solely because non-generation is admitted, or to grant final exoneration without a valid adjudication of the explanation and surrounding facts. Section 113(1) empowers the Tribunal to refer the case back to the original adjudicating authority with directions for fresh adjudication, after taking additional evidence if necessary. As the infirmity originates in the original determination and the matters are primarily factual and adjudicatory, remand to the original adjudicating authority is the appropriate course, since remand to the First Appellate Authority would not cure the foundational defect. The remand is confined to the allegation in MOV-07, with no new factual foundation or charge. The officer shall verify the documents actually produced at interception, examine the timing of the alleged portal attempts and the claimed urgency, and pass a fresh speaking order after an effective personal hearing, with DRC-07 as applicable. The amount paid shall abide by the fresh adjudication and is not a waiver of the right to contest the levy - The matter is remitted to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication within the scope of that notice, with all contentions on merits kept open - The appeal stands disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-34-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Scope of appellate jurisdiction under Sections 100 and 101 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal cannot be decided on a materially altered factual matrix introduced at the appellate stage - Appellant, a manufacturer of soap bars weighing less than 500 grams marketed as laundry soap, sought a ruling on the applicability of the 5% rate under Sl. No. 251 of Schedule I. The AAR classified the product as laundry soap under tariff item 3401 19 42 and held it taxable at 18% GST under Sl. No. 66 of Schedule II - In the appeal, the Appellant produced a fresh test report obtained after the ruling, relating to a sample described merely as a brand soap, along with another soap bar in newly introduced packaging bearing the expressions Wash and Bath and Transparent Soap and no longer bearing the words Laundry Soap - Whether the appeal can be decided on the subsequently produced soap, its revised packaging and the fresh test report - HELD - The differences between the two products are not confined to the wrapper but are also discernible in description, labelling and physical appearance. The record contains no batch records, manufacturing formulae, raw-material particulars, specifications or comparative test results to establish that the composition and essential characteristics remained unchanged - The test report does not mention the batch number, the date of manufacture, the description on the wrapper or any other identifying particulars. In the absence of a documented link between the tested sample and the original product, the report cannot establish the identity or equivalence of the two products. An appeal under Section 100 lies against the Advance Ruling pronounced under Section 98(4), and under Section 101(1) the Appellate Authority may pass such order as it thinks fit, confirming or modifying the ruling appealed against. The jurisdiction relates to the ruling actually pronounced and the factual foundation on which it was rendered, and it does not contemplate the exercise of original jurisdiction over a materially different product - The subsequently produced soap, its revised packaging and the fresh test report introduce a materially altered factual matrix, and the classification and rate of tax applicable to that product do not fall for determination in the appeal. The Appellant may pursue such remedy as is available under law on the basis of a complete and consistent disclosure - The Appellate Authority refrained from examining the impugned ruling on merits. The appeal is rejected [Read less]

2026-VIL-1184-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Limitation for appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Communication of adjudication order uploaded under 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of GST portal - Adjudication order was uploaded on the portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' section instead of the 'View Notices and Orders' section, the Petitioner claimed to have become aware of it only later - The appeal filed thereafter was rejected by the first Appellate Authority as time-barred -Whether upload of the order under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab amounts to communication for the purpose of Section 107(1) - HELD - Section 107(1... [Read more]

2026-VIL-201-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act - Whether proof of intent to evade tax is required for penalty - Vehicles carrying goods under e-way bills were intercepted by the State Tax Officer after the e-way bills had expired, and penalty equal to twice the tax was imposed and paid for release - Appellant contended that penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of any finding of evasion of tax - Whether facts, circumstances or material showing intent to evade tax must be on record for invoking Section 129(1)(a) and imposing penalty - HELD - A taxing statute is to be strictly construed, and its intention must be gathered from the words used. Section 129(1) does not mention intent to evade tax as mandatory, unlike Section 130(1). Mens rea is not essential for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations. Following the Calcutta High Court in Asian Switchgear, intent to evade tax is not necessary for imposing penalty under this section, as it is a civil liability - Proof of or facts, circumstances or material showing intent to evade tax are not required for invoking Section 129(1) or imposing penalty - The question of law is decided in favour of the Respondent-Deptrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Transportation of goods on expired e-way bills - Interstate stock transfer - Rule 138(10) - Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST - E-way bills were valid up to a date, and the vehicles were intercepted six days after their expiry, about a short distance from the destination - Appellant claimed that the vehicles had broken down and that the movement was a stock transfer between its own units - Whether the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) is sustainable - HELD - The validity of an e-way bill may be extended within eight hours from the time of its expiry. The Appellant produced no repair bills or other evidence of the alleged breakdown, though the vehicles belonged to its own unit. Neither the supplier, the recipient nor the transporter attempted to amend or extend the e-way bills in the six days, and the driver's lack of knowledge was no answer as the amendment could be made by those persons. The vehicles were intercepted only a short distance from the destination, which was a matter of hours. Stock transfer between distinct registrations gives no blanket permission for non-amendment of e-way bills. The Circular does not provide that no proceeding under Section 129 be initiated where an e-way bill has expired, because its exceptions apply where a valid e-way bill accompanies the goods. An adverse inference was drawn against the Appellant for not producing evidence which could have been produced - No satisfactory explanation for non-validation of the e-way bills within the prescribed period was found, and the penalty is sustained.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Section 129(3) and (4) - Alleged non-compliance with notice, hearing and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST - Appellant contended that MOV-01 and the order were passed on the same date, that no notice under Section 129(3) was given, that no opportunity of hearing under Section 129(4) was provided, and that copies of the forms were not supplied - Whether the alleged procedural lapses vitiate the penalty - HELD - The Appellant had full opportunity before the Tribunal to produce its explanation and documentary evidence for non-amending of the e-way bills. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, can consider the explanation. The Appellant offered no satisfactory explanation, and the procedural grounds therefore did not assist it - Both the appeals are rejected. [Read less]

2026-VIL-200-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

GST - Bill-to/Ship-to transaction - Section 10(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 - Rule 138(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Person responsible for generating e-way bill - Appellant supplied TMT bars from one State to another, and the invoices were issued to an intermediate purchaser as the "Bill-to" party and to the consignee as the "Ship-to" party - The consignee, who arranged the transport, generated the e-way bills before interception on invoices raised by the intermediary - The Tax Officer detained the vehicle on the ground that the actual seller had neither issued the invoice nor generated the e-way bill - Whether the transaction is a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction and whether the e-way bills generated by the consignee are valid - HELD - Section 10(1)(b) involves three persons, the consignor, the intermediate person and the consignee. In a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction the intermediate person directs the supplier to dispatch the goods directly to the ultimate recipient and thereafter raises a separate invoice for the onward supply. It is a recognised commercial practice and, by itself, not a contravention, provided the transactions are genuine, duly documented, appropriately accounted for and the tax liability is discharged - Under Rule 138(2), the consignor or the consignee who causes the movement is required to generate the e-way bill. The invoices recorded the party responsible for transport, and the consignee generated the e-way bills before interception. The intermediary may retain the original invoice and issue a separate invoice without disclosing the original supplier. All four invoices were e-invoices available on the portal and capable of verification by the department. The email correspondence and factory-gate records, which showed departure shortly before interception near the factory, supported the genuine movement - The transaction is held to be a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction, and the allegation that the actual supplier failed to generate the invoice and e-way bill is not sustainable – The appeal is allowedrnrn rnrn^Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) - Goods accompanied by invoices and e-way bills in Bill-to/Ship-to transaction - Appellant's reply to the department was not considered by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority - Appellant contended that goods were accompanied by valid invoices and e-way bills, that penalty was imposed without following the procedure, and that intent to evade tax was not proved - Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(a) is maintainable - HELD - Since the case of the Appellant is covered by the Bill-to/Ship-to transaction and all necessary requirements were complied with, Section 129 is not applied. The vehicle was intercepted a short time after leaving the factory and at a short distance from it, which supports the genuine movement of the goods. The point regarding proof of intent to evade tax was not considered in detail - The impugned action is not sustainable in law, and the appeal is allowed. [Read less]

2026-VIL-1778-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of tax with interest - Reference to Larger Bench on rate and commencement of interest under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellants, claiming interest on refund of amounts deposited during investigation, relied on decisions awarding interest at 12% from the date of deposit, while the Revenue relied on a recent decision of a coordinate Bench allowing interest only at the notified rate of 6% only after expiry of three months from the receipt of the refund application - Whether interest on refund is payable at 12% or at the notified rate of 6%, and whether it runs from the date of deposit or after three months from the date of receipt of the refund application - HELD - Section 11BB provides for interest on delayed refund only after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application, at the rate fixed by notification, which is 6%. Division Benches of the Tribunal have taken contrary views, some awarding interest strictly per the statute and others awarding 6% to 12% from the date of deposit contrary to the express statutory provisions - The Supreme Court and High Courts have allowed interest at 6% as provided in the statute, and where relief was otherwise granted by them, it was in writ jurisdiction on the facts of those cases. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, derives its powers from the statute and does not exercise the constitutional powers of a High Court or the Supreme Court to go beyond the statute - Since the matter has been decided contrarily by two Benches of higher strength, the controversy requires resolution by a still larger Bench on the issue of refund of self-assessed voluntary payments and involuntary deposits, covering the applicability of Section 11B and the law of limitation, availability of interest under Section 11BB where refund is claimed beyond Section 11B, the relevant date for interest, the applicable rate, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary deposits, the power of the Tribunal to apply equity beyond the statute, and the grant of interest under the Tribunal’s procedural rules - Issues referred to the President for constitution of a Larger Bench – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-1761-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Liability to pay service tax on transportation of goods by road under reverse charge - Appellant rendered transportation of goods by road service to four body corporates, and the consignment notes and bills specifically mentioned that the service tax was to be paid by the recipients, who also gave declarations that they had discharged service tax on RCM basis - Principal Commissioner confirmed the demand under GTA service on the Appellant - Whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax on the transportation service when the recipients paid the freight and fall within the categories mentioned in the Notification - HELD - As per the Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, in respect of transportation of goods by road, the liability to pay service tax is on the person who pays the freight, if the receiver falls within any of the categories mentioned therein including a body corporate. The recipients paid the freight and are body corporates, and therefore they are liable to pay service tax on RCM basis. Demanding service tax from the Appellant again would amount to double taxation on the same amount - The demand of service tax along with interest is set aside.rnrn^Validity of demand based on ITR data received from Income Tax Department - Show Cause Notice was issued on the entire amount shown in the ITR data without mentioning any particular service provided by the Appellant, and without any investigation carried out by the Department - Whether service tax can be charged on the turnover shown in the ITR without verifying the nature of service rendered - HELD - The notice alleged non-payment of service tax on the entire amount shown in ITR irrespective of the nature and character of services. Service tax cannot be charged on the turnover shown in the ITR without verifying whether the Appellant has rendered any taxable service or not. There must be a specific allegation with reference to the nature of service rendered - The demand based on the ITR data is not sustainable.rnrn^Invocation of extended period of limitation where demand is raised on the basis of ITR data - Appellant was registered under the Finance Act, 1994, and the demand was raised on the basis of ITR data received from the Income Tax Department - Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable in the absence of suppression - HELD - As the demand was raised on the basis of ITR received from the Income Tax Department, there cannot be any allegation of suppression of any fact by the Appellant with intent to evade payment of service tax - The demand of service tax confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable.rnrn^Non-compliance with pre-show cause notice consultation - Board instruction made pre-show cause notice consultation mandatory by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner prior to issue of show cause notice in cases involving demands above the specified threshold, except preventive or offence related notices - Show Cause Notice was issued without such consultation - Whether the order is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the instruction - HELD - The instruction for conducting consultation by the adjudicating authority with the assessee prior to issue of the notice is mandatory, and the case of the Appellant does not fall within the exclusion provided in the instruction. This is an important step towards trade facilitation and promoting voluntary compliance and to reduce the necessity of issuing show cause notice. Since the notice was issued without pre-consultation, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground also, as held by the High Court.rnrn^Imposition of penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Penalty was imposed under Section 78 along with a penalty under Section 77 for violation of provisions under Section 70 - Whether penalty is imposable when the demand of service tax is not sustained and no suppression is established - HELD - As the demand of service tax is not sustained and no suppression of fact is established, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant under Section 78 - The penalty under Section 78 is set aside, while the penalty imposed under Section 77 for violation of provisions under Section 70 is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. [Read less]

2026-VIL-216-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

GST - Bunching of appeals and reckoning of cumulative monetary threshold under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Eleven appeals, with common Appellant and Respondent, arose from rejection of refund of IGST paid on export of services for different tax periods - Whether the monetary threshold for hearing by a Single Member is to be reckoned cumulatively, and whether a refund claim denied falls within the amounts contemplated by Section 109(8) - HELD - Where the parties and the issue are common across a set of appeals, bunching serves judicial consistency and avoids divergent findings on an identical question, and all eleven appeals having the same parties and the same cause of action, namely denial of refund of IGST on export of services, with distinction only in tax period and quantum, bunching is warranted - The matter can be placed before a Single Member, with the approval of the President, only where two conditions are cumulatively satisfied, namely that the amount involved does not exceed the prescribed limit and that no question of law is involved - For bunched appeals the monetary limit is to be reckoned cumulatively, and the cumulative amount across the eleven appeals exceeds the prescribed limit – Further, independent of the monetary limit, Section 109(8) speaks of the amount of tax, input tax credit, fine, fee or penalty determined by the order appealed against, and a rejected refund claim is not an amount determined against the taxpayer but a claim of entitlement denied to the taxpayer, so that the dispute does not fall within the class of matters contemplated for a Single Member - Appeals ordered to be bunched, and the cumulative amount held to exceed the threshold for hearing by a Single Member – The subject appeals shall be heard together by a Bench consisting of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member (Division Bench) - Ordered accordingly - Question of law under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Retrospective application of a beneficial amendment to Notification No.15/2018-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 26.07.2018 - Whether the appeals involve a question of law within the meaning of Section 109(8) - HELD - Whether the amendment to the notification is curative and therefore retrospective, or substantive and therefore prospective, and consequently whether the refund claims for the periods in dispute are governed by the amended or the unamended position, cannot be decided without interpreting the relevant statutory, notification and circular provisions governing processing of refund claims arising from export of services - A question of law encompasses any issue requiring interpretation of legal principles, statute, notification, circular or precedent, and such matters are required to be heard by a Division Bench - Common submission of both Authorised Representatives that a question of law is involved held sustainable - Appeals directed to be heard together by one Judicial Member and one Technical Member (Division Bench). [Read less]

2026-VIL-215-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

GST - Scope of expression “question of law” under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 where the amount in dispute being less than Rs. 50 lakh - Constitution of Bench for appeal involving detention of goods and proceedings under Section 129 - Appellant-Dept challenged the order of the FAA which had set aside the penalty under Section 129(3) and imposed a lesser penalty under Section 125, in respect of a conveyance carrying goods from one State to another - Appellant contended that no question of law is involved and that the issue is factual, while Respondent contended that the appeal involves question of law - Whether ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-214-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

GST - Question of law under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Constitution of Bench for appeal concerning input tax credit availed in FORM GSTR-3B but not reflected in FORM GSTR-2A - Whether the appeal involves a question of law within the meaning of Section 109(8), having regard to the amount in dispute being within the threshold for hearing by a Single Member - HELD - The controversy turns on Section 16(2)(c), and the questions arising concern the construction of Section 16(2)(c) read with Sections 16(1), 41 and 155 where the recipient holds tax invoices and proof of payment but payment of tax by the supplier is not... [Read more]

2026-VIL-33-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – Telangana AAAR - Exemption under Sl. No. 3 and Sl. No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Recipient condition - Sub-contractor supplying manpower to Principal Contractor – Appellant-sub-contractor engaged for operation and maintenance of water supply projects awarded by the State Government to the Principal Contractor, contended that its supply is a pure service exempt under Sl. No. 3 or a composite supply with goods not exceeding 25% of value exempt under Sl. No. 3A - Whether the services supplied by the Appellant to the Principal Contractor are covered by Sl. No. 3 or Sl. No. 3A of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - HELD - The exemption is conditional, and all the prescribed conditions have to be satisfied. The expression provided to the Central Government, State Government or Union territory or local authority links the exemption to the recipient of the supply. The immediate recipient of the services under the sub-contract is the Principal Contractor and not the State Government or a local authority - The fact that the ultimate project is a Government project does not by itself change the identity of the recipient. The work order shows that manpower was engaged for twelve months with rates quoted per man day excluding GST, and payment was to be released against GST invoice. The supply under the sub-contract is therefore a separate taxable supply, and the Principal Contractor, being a private company, does not fall within the specified class of recipients. Sl. No. 3A likewise requires the composite supply to be provided to the specified recipients, and the basic recipient condition is not satisfied. The description of the activity as pure services or manpower supply does not by itself confer exemption. Even assuming that the supply is a pure service in relation to a function covered by Article 243W or 243G, or a composite supply with goods not exceeding 25%, the recipient condition remains unsatisfied - The supply is not covered by Sl. No. 3 or 3A and is liable to GST at 18%, - The ruling of the lower authority is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Reliance on a Service Tax circular and judicial precedents to claim exemption for sub-contractor - Express conditions of exemption notification - Appellant relied on Circular No. 147/16/2011-ST issued under the erstwhile Service Tax regime, on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., and on State of Karnataka v. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish, which adopted a purposive interpretation of an exemption entry - HELD - The Circular and Larsen and Toubro pertain to the earlier indirect tax regime or to the transfer of property in goods. They cannot override the express conditions of the exemption notification under the GST law. Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish is distinguishable, as it concerned the interpretation of the expression use as a residence in the exemption relating to renting of a residential dwelling, which did not contain a recipient-specific condition - Entries 3 and 3A, in contrast, expressly restrict the exemption to specified services supplied to specified recipients, so the identity and status of the recipient is an essential condition. Following Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company, an exemption notification should be interpreted strictly. Where the words are clear, plain and unambiguous, the said meaning has to be given effect to irrespective of consequences. The Appellant must independently establish that its supply satisfies all the conditions of the relevant entry - The ratio of these decisions cannot dispense with the recipient condition, and the appeal is rejected [Read less]

2026-VIL-1189-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs - Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority for all Show Cause Notices arising from a single investigation - Petitioner challenged the Notification appointing a Common Adjudicating Authority in respect of only one of three Show Cause Notices issued pursuant to the investigation by the DRI and sought appointment of a single authority for all three - Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for appointment of a Common Adjudicating Authority for all three Show Cause Notices - HELD - The request for common adjudication is not without basis as there is substantial overlap in the material relied upon, but the three Show Cause Notices have distinct subject matters and arise at different stages, one concerning live consignments intercepted at import, another concerning Bills of Entry of cleared consignments under Section 28(4), and the third concerning equipment found at data centres without import documentation. The principle in Star Delta Exim (P) Ltd. recognises the utility of common adjudication to avoid inconsistent findings, but cannot mean that every notice emanating from a common investigation must be adjudicated by one authority irrespective of the allegations and reliefs proposed. Since two of the three notices were subsequently adjudicated while the petition was pending and the validity of that adjudication is itself under challenge, a direction for common adjudication would displace the adjudication already undertaken and serve no useful purpose - The prayer is declined at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations - The writ petition is dismissed - Adjudication of Show Cause Notices during pendency of writ petition and interim order - Respondent adjudicated two Show Cause Notices at New Delhi while the writ petition for a Common Adjudicating Authority was pending, and the Petitioner contended that this violated the interim order which recorded a prima facie view against multiplicity of adjudication and directed adjournment of the personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, and that it had brought this order to the notice of the adjudicating authority seeking deferment - Whether adjudication of the two Show Cause Notices was impermissible on account of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order - HELD - The observations in the interim order were prima facie observations at an interlocutory stage, and the operative direction was confined to adjourning the personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which did not involve the two notices adjudicated at New Delhi. The order did not expressly stay or restrain their adjudication. The communication of the Petitioner seeking deferment was a circumstance requiring consideration but did not amount to an order of the Court restraining the adjudicating authority - The pendency of the writ petition and the interim order did not render the adjudication without jurisdiction - The writ petition is dismissed - Maintainability of writ petition against consolidated Order-in-Original alleging denial of effective opportunity of hearing in presence of alternative remedy under Section 128 - Whether the Court should entertain the challenge under Article 226 notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy - HELD - The alternative remedy is not an absolute bar - As the impugned order is a consolidated adjudication against several noticees, setting it aside qua individual petitioners would not be appropriate. The principle that a real and effective opportunity of hearing must be afforded remains undisputed, but its application depends on the factual record, and the objection on limitation requires examination of the notice, transactions and material dates - The challenge is not entertained in writ jurisdiction, the Petitioners are at liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy and urge all objections including limitation, non-consideration of reply and non-service of hearing notices, without any opinion on merits - The writ petitions are dismissed. [Read less]

More Judgements Home More Judgements

2026-VIL-1777-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1776-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1774-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1772-CESTAT-MUM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1773-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-1770-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1769-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1771-CESTAT-DEL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1768-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

2026-VIL-1775-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-106-SC | Supreme Court VAT

2026-VIL-1193-CAL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1191-CAL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-209-GSTAT-DEL-PB | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-212-GSTAT-PYG | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-210-GSTAT-VSK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-211-GSTAT-VSK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-213-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1759-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1185-GUJ | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-206-GSTAT-BLR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-206-GSTAT-BLR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-198-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1190-DEL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-1192-KAR | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-208-GSTAT-AGR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1183-TEL | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-199-GSTAT-KLK | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-203-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-202-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-204-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-34-AAAR | AAAR SGST

2026-VIL-1184-BOM | High Court SGST

2026-VIL-201-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-200-GSTAT-RPR | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-1778-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-1761-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

2026-VIL-216-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-215-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-214-GSTAT-CHE | Tribunal SGST

2026-VIL-33-AAAR | AAAR SGST

2026-VIL-1189-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

More Judgements

Home

More Judgements