More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-51-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Taxability of actionable claims arising from betting and gambling - Constitutionally validity of provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, including Sections 2(31), 2(52), 7, 9 and 15, and the Rules framed thereunder, insofar as they subject actionable claims arising from betting and gambling to GST - Whether actionable claims arising from betting and gambling fall within the ambit of "goods" and constitute taxable supplies under the statutory framework embodied in Sections 2(1), 2(31), 2(52), 7, 9 and Entry 6 of Schedule III of the CGST Act, and whether the inclusion of actionable claims within the definition of "goods" under Section 2(52) is constitutionally and statutorily valid – HELD – The levy of GST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling transactions is constitutionally valid, within the legislative competence conferred by Article 246A of the Constitution, and consistent with the statutory framework embodied in the CGST Act, 2017 and the corresponding State GST enactments - The challenge to the constitutional and statutory validity of Sections 2(31), 2(52), 7, 9 and 15 of the CGST Act, 2017, the corresponding provisions of the State GST enactments, and Rules 31A and 31B of the CGST Rules, 2017, together with the notifications, circulars and executive instruments issued in furtherance thereof, fails and is accordingly rejected - The amendments introduced by the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2023, including the amendments to Entry 6 of Schedule III and insertion of Rules 31B and 31C, are clarificatory and explanatory in nature and shall operate retrospectively in the manner indicated hereinabove - Organised online gaming activities, including fantasy sports and analogous gaming formats involving pooled stakes, give rise to actionable-claim supplies exigible to GST under the statutory framework governing betting and gambling transactions - Insofar as casino transactions are concerned, recourse to Rule 31 and adoption of best judgment methodologies under the pre-amendment framework cannot be said to be impermissible in the absence of complete and reliable contemporaneous records. However, the ultimate determination and computation of taxable value shall stand governed by Rule 31C – The petitions are disposed of [Read less]

2026-VIL-937-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Supply of Tangible Goods Service - Classification of trailer hiring services - Whether hiring of trailers with crew and equipment, where possession and effective control remain with service provider, constitutes supply of tangible goods service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of Finance Act, 1994 or GTA service – HELD - The essential ingredients for attracting the definition of taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) are: provision of service by one person to another in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances, with no transfer of right of possession, effective control continuing with service provider, and goods supplied for use by recipient. The term "use" does not require physical operation or technical expertise but signifies application of goods for the purpose for which they are supplied under contract terms. The work orders examined establish that the service provider supplied trailers on hire charge basis inclusive of fuel, crew, and accommodation, with service provider responsible for insurance, maintenance, repairs, crew compensation, and health and safety compliance, retaining comprehensive control over equipment throughout contract period. This constitutes license to use goods without transfer of right to use, falling within Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – The Section 65(105)(zzzzj) was enacted precisely to levy service tax on such “licence to use” that goes in tandem with the tangible goods supplied, where right of possession and effective control are not transferred to the service recipient. The Adjudicating Authority's findings that services are classifiable as supply of tangible goods service and not goods transport agency service are upheld, as requirement of consignment note under Rule 4B is not applicable where possession and control are retained by service provider. The terminology of "hire charges" versus "freight charges" in balance sheet does not alter actual nature of service when work orders clearly indicate hiring of equipment on lump sum basis without transfer of possession or control - the appellant are covered under “Supply of Tangible Goods services”, the reliance placed by the appellant on the decisions in support of its contention that it is covered under GTA service inapplicable and distinguishable - While the appellant is entitled to cum-tax benefit as well as computation of cenvat credit entitlement, it needs to be verified whether the liability has been correctly discharged - The appeal is disposed of by remandrnrnDemand invoking the extended period of limitation – HELD – The ST-3 returns were filed erratically and that too indicating partial discharge of liability is not controverted. There is no claim of bonafides nor even a plea that the liability has been declared in the ST-3 returns correctly, though discharged partly, to show that there was no intent to evade payment of service tax. Concededly the ST-3 returns itself have not been filed for the entire disputed period, save for 2012-13. There has been no contest to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding invoking the extended period of limitation either in the reply of the appellant or in the grounds of the appeal preferred before us. In these circumstances, there is no substance in the claim that it was only issues of interpretation and that therefore the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Therefore, no reason to interdict the findings of the Adjudicating Authority on this aspect of invoking extended period of limitation - While the appellant is entitled to cum-tax benefit as well as computation of cenvat credit entitlement without invoking the bar prescribed in Rule 4(1), it needs to be verified whether the liability has been correctly discharged. [Read less]

2026-VIL-938-CESTAT-BLR-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of 5G Radio Unit Device – Respondent-importer imported Airspan Air Velocity 2700 device and declared it under Customs Tariff Heading 8517 6260 (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy System - SDH) - Adjudication authority reclassified the goods under 8517 6290 (others), rejecting the original classification - Whether the Air Velocity 2700 device should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 8517 6260 (SDH equipment) or 8517 6290 (other machines for reception, conversion and transmission of data) - HELD – From the technical specifications and functional characteristics of the device it is found that... [Read more]

2026-VIL-940-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - CENVAT credit - Defective invoices lacking mandatory particulars - Whether CENVAT credit can be availed on invoices that do not contain all the mandatory particulars prescribed under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD - The Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 divides the particulars in an input credit document into a core area comprising duty or service tax payable, description of goods or taxable service, assessable value, service tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice, and name and address of the provider of output service, and a penumbra area comprising all other details. The particulars in the core area are foundational and mandatory in nature. The discretionary jurisdiction of the proper officer is confined to the penumbra area. The burden of proof regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit lies squarely upon the service provider claiming such credit under Rule 9(5) and (6) - The service provider cannot circumvent the statutory burden merely by producing defective invoices along with proof of payment. Where the statute prescribes that an act must be done in a particular manner and provides consequences of non-compliance, the requirement is mandatory. Therefore, demonstrating the integrity of the core area particulars of the input credit document is mandatory and beyond the subjective or discretionary jurisdiction of the proper officer - The demand pertaining to invoices lacking mandatory particulars was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to the appellant to submit all documents for verification – The appeal is disposed ofrnrnEligibility of input services - Nexus between input and output service - Whether services such as civil works for renovation, vehicle hire and repair, sales promotion, membership fees, water and food testing, public performance licence, and insurance of company-owned vehicles constitute eligible input services with real and sufficient nexus to the output service of club or association, tour operations, and related taxable services, particularly after the amendment to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 effective from 01.04.2011 which deleted the phrase "activities relating to business" – HELD - These input services are eligible for credit as they have a real and sufficient nexus with the assessee's output service and are not for personal use or consumption of employees. The definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, even after the deletion of the phrase "activities relating to business" effective from 01.04.2011, allows credit where the service satisfies the "means" part of the definition by having a real and sufficient nexus with the assessee's output service. The test is functional and commercial nexus, not rigid direct one-to-one correlation between input and output service. Civil works used in modernization, renovation or repairs of factory or premises of provider of output service are specifically covered in the inclusive part of the definition as clarified by Board Circular. Vehicle hire and repair services used for taxable output services and not for personal use of employees are eligible. Services relating to advertisement, sales promotion, market research are included in the definition of input service. Membership fees provided by industry or business associations are not for personal consumption. Water and food testing and public performance licence are statutory or business necessities integral to hospitality services. Insurance of company-owned vehicles, where such vehicles are capital goods, falls outside the exclusion under Rule 2(l). All these services are consumed or used in relation to the output service and have a functional connection to the business activities, thus qualifying as eligible input services - The demand regarding denial of credit on these input services was set aside and credit was allowed as the services are eligible input services with real and sufficient nexus to the output service.rnrnShow Cause Notice - Whether the adjudicating authority can confirm demands and impose penalties on disputed services that were not specifically averred or detailed in the Show Cause Notice and whether the authority can go beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice – HELD - The adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond or outside the scope of the Show Cause Notice. The principle established in Commissioner versus Toyo Engineering India Limited that the department cannot traverse beyond the show cause notice is a cardinal principle in tax adjudication. The Show Cause Notice forms the foundation of adjudication and must contain clear, evidence-based allegations. Any demand confirmed in the adjudication order must find support or clear averment in the corresponding Show Cause Notice. When the adjudicating authority confirms demands on services not specifically mentioned or detailed in the Show Cause Notice, it violates the principle of natural justice and the procedural requirements governing tax adjudication. This ensures that the assessee has a fair opportunity to respond to the specific allegations made in the notice and cannot be taken by surprise by new or additional grounds introduced during adjudication - Demands confirmed regarding courier charges, bank charges, telecommunication charges, and consultancy services without specific averment in the Show Cause Notice are set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-941-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation, Suppression with intent to evade duty - Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be validly invoked when the Show Cause Notice is issued beyond three years from the date of discovery – HELD - The department was aware of the matter from the date of visit (12.02.2013) or at least from the date of deposit (07.03.2013), yet the Show Cause Notice came only on 26.04.2016, clearly beyond the period of limitation. The allegation of suppression with intention to evade duty is untenable since the adjudicating aut... [Read more]

2026-VIL-939-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of kitchen and household items - Appellant imported various items including baskets, racks, bottle holders, plate racks, drawer systems, carousel units, and similar products designed for use in modular kitchen furniture and wardrobes – Appellant classified the items under Customs Tariff Headings 7323, 8302, and 7615, the Department subsequently reclassified all items under CTH 9403 90 00 (other furniture and parts thereof) - Whether products such as baskets, racks, holders, and drawer systems designed to be fixed within modular kitchen or wardrobe furniture should be classified under Chapter 73 (kitchen and household articles), Chapter 83 (base metal mountings and fittings), or Chapter 94 (furniture and parts thereof) under the Customs Tariff – HELD - While the products may be fixed within larger furniture assemblies, they retain their essential character as kitchen and household articles or as base metal mountings and fittings suitable for furniture. The Rule 3(a) of GRI provides that headings offering the most specific description must be preferred over those providing general descriptions. Chapter 73 specifically covers kitchen and household articles of iron or steel, while Chapter 83 specifically covers base metal mountings and fittings suitable for furniture. Chapter 94, by contrast, provides a general description covering furniture and parts thereof not covered by previous headings - The Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I versus Crystal Interior Products, held that kitchen and household articles cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as furniture items, and that such articles must be classified according to their actual usage and common trade parlance - The goods possess distinct identities and individual functions independent of their ultimate placement within furniture units, and that identical products are being cleared by other importers under Chapter 73 in current practice, demonstrating consistent trade classification. The Department had not raised any classification objections during the prior many years of imports by the appellant, and the duty demand arose only after the duty rate was increased from 10% to 20% in February 2018, suggesting the objection was motivated by revenue considerations rather than genuine classification concerns – The impugned order classifying the goods under CTI 9403 90 00 is set aside and the original classification under CTH 7323/8302 is restored – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-924-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Cenvat Credit on input services including car booking software, servicing of company-owned vehicles, chartered aircraft, civil and interior works, demerger-related professional services, catering services, employee insurance, security and housekeeping services, services relating to immovable property, club membership, rent-a-cab services and marine insurance relating to exports – HELD - The eligibility of input services depends upon satisfaction of the criteria that such services must have a real and sufficient nexus with the assessee's output service and must not be utilized for personal use or consumption... [Read more]

2026-VIL-923-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Inclusion of Wall Rent in Assessable Value of Advertising Services – Appellant providing wall advertising and hoarding services to various clients makes payments to wall owners for rent of walls and recovers the same from clients through debit notes, but does not include wall rent in the invoiced service charges for the purpose of computing service tax liability - Whether expenses incurred by the advertising agency on wall rent should be included in the assessable value for the purposes of payment of service tax - HELD - Under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax is chargeable on the gross amount charged for providing taxable service - The wall rent must be included in the assessable value as it constitutes an essential and intrinsic component of the taxable advertising service that cannot be separated from the service rendered. The argument that wall rent represents reimbursable expenditure incurred as a "pure agent" fails because the appellant has not established any direct contractual arrangement between the clients and wall owners. The so-called "Agreement Form Cum Receipt" signed only by wall owners cannot constitute an agreement between contracting parties - The Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006, which provides exclusion for a "pure agent," requires strict compliance with all prescribed conditions including tripartite or bipartite agreements, which are absent in this case. Since the wall rent was organically connected with the taxable service and constituted an essential ingredient thereof, it remains includible in the assessable value notwithstanding the manner of invoicing or the fact that amounts were recovered separately through debit notes – The demand for inclusion of wall rent in assessable value is upheld in favour of the revenue - Inclusion of Value of Printed Flex Material supplied by Related Entity - Whether the value of flexes supplied by the related entity should be included in the assessable value of the advertising service provided by the appellant - HELD - The value of printed flex material cannot be included in the assessable value of the advertising service. Although the entities share common management with a proprietor being both the proprietor of the advertising agency and Karta of the HUF, mere commonality of management does not justify clubbing of turnover or disregarding separate legal identity. The printed flex material constitutes identifiable movable goods separately invoiced and subjected to VAT/sales tax. Notification No. 12/2003-ST specifically exempts the value of goods sold during provision of taxable service subject to documentary proof. Since the transaction represents a separate sale of goods with separately ascertainable value, supplied by an entity other than the advertising agency, and applicable VAT/sales tax has been paid on the material, the value cannot be included in the service tax base merely because the goods are utilized in execution of the service – The demand for inclusion of the value of printed flex material is rejected in favour of the appellant - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - Whether the department is justified in invoking the extended period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice on the grounds of suppression of facts - HELD - The requirement of "suppression of facts" and "wilful misstatement" under Section 73(1) demands deliberate intent and positive acts of evasion by the assessee, and the burden of proving satisfaction of these preconditions lies on the revenue. Mere negligence, bona fide mistakes, or divergent interpretations of law are insufficient grounds for invoking the extended period - The prior knowledge or capacity of the Department to acquire relevant knowledge through audits, filed returns, or site visits effectively negates any allegation of suppression. Since the Show Cause Notice was issued consequent to an audit, and the appellant was regularly filing returns and paying taxes, the Department cannot invoke the extended period by merely stating it is a case of self-assessment without having first called upon the assessee for information or scrutinized the correctness of duty assessed – The invocation of extended period of limitation is rejected, and consequently the penalties imposed cannot be sustained. [Read less]

2026-VIL-919-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Demand of Service Tax on Directors’ Remuneration under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Employer-employee relationship, tax deduction at source under section 192 of the Income Tax Act and issuance of Form 16 - Whether remuneration paid to whole-time directors functioning as employees attracts service tax under RCM – HELD - The demand of service tax on remuneration paid to whole-time directors cannot be sustained as the provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment is specifically excluded from the definition of service under section 65B(44)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. A whole-time director is recognized as key managerial personnel under the Companies Act and is held responsible for any default or violation, thereby establishing an essential employer-employee relationship - The fact that whole-time directors receive variable pay in the form of commission or profit-sharing does not alter their employee status. Tax deduction at source under section 192 of the Income Tax Act and issuance of Form 16 corroborate the employer-employee relationship – The whole-time Director is essentially an employee of the Company and accordingly, whatever remuneration is being paid in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act, is pursuant to employer-employee relationship and the mere fact that the whole-time Director is compensated by way of variable pay will not in any manner alter or dilute the position of employer-employee status between the company /Appellant and the whole-time Directors - Further, when the original show cause notice on which the subsequent demands were based has been set aside by the Tribunal in the company's own earlier appeal, the subsequent demand notices relying on the same grounds cannot sustain - For non-whole-time directors, where the company has discharged service tax liability through its separate office and filed service tax returns disclosing the same, the demand cannot be made from another office in the absence of centralized registration and without any evidence showing that these directors also rendered services to that office during the relevant period - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-925-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Valuation of second-hand imported machinery – Load Port Chartered Engineer's Certificate – Rejection of declared transaction value – Import of used Fuji Printer Processors classifying under CTH No.90101000 - Customs authority enhanced value relying on local Chartered Engineer's Certificate – Whether the rejection of declared transaction value premised on Load Port Certificate and enhancement based on local Chartered Engineer's Certificate without independent basis is tenable – HELD - The Customs authorities have merely substituted the opinion of local Chartered Engineer for that of Load Port Chartered Engineer without any sufficient independent basis for such adoption. The local Certificate lacks details of market enquiry conducted, fails to elaborate the rationale for arrived value, silent on operational condition testing, and contradicts the Load Port Certificate which contains assessment/technical details and states machines to be in working condition. Further, Customs authorities have not impugned the Load Port Certificate as not genuine or fraudulently obtained – The Board Circular No.4/2008-Customs dated 12-02-2008 stipulates that in absence of proper Load Port Certificate, local Chartered Engineer's Certificate may be accepted, thereby indicating primacy of Load Port Certificate - There must be reasonable basis supported by cogent evidence for believing transaction value is unacceptable, which must be clearly communicated by reasoned order. Mere suspicion is antithetical to conducive business environment. The non-issuance of speaking order by Assistant Commissioner despite statutory mandate under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 and Appellate Authority's failure to controvert specific contentions constitutes violation of natural justice – Rejection of Load Port Certificate in favour of local Certificate is untenable, consequent rejection of transaction value and enhancement cannot sustain, and declared value is acceptable for assessment under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-921-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs law - EPCG Scheme – Validity of confiscation of imported capital goods and imposition of penalty for non-fulfilment of export obligation - Whether confiscation of imported capital goods and imposition of penalty are sustainable when the entire differential duty along with applicable interest stands paid by the importer for failure to fulfil the export obligation within the stipulated period under the EPCG Scheme – HELD - Upon payment of duty and interest, the importer exits the EPCG scheme and the goods cannot be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Non-fulfilment of export... [Read more]

2026-VIL-49-SC-CE | Supreme Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Meaning and application of "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Transformation test – Two-fold test for determining manufacturing activity Cutting and grooving of aluminum composite panels – Appellant-assessee undertook the activity of importing pre-coated aluminum composite panels and cutting them into rectangular or square panels of required sizes according to design requirements, making grooves on the back side to enable affixing to buildings, and then erecting frames using angles, clamps and fasteners - Revenue contended that the process amounts to manufacture and attracts excise duty - Whether the process of cutting and grooving of aluminum composite panels amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - To ascertain excisability of goods, a two-fold test must be applied, first, whether the process results in emergence of goods with distinct commercial identity, name, character or use indicating transformation; and second, whether the transformed goods are marketable as distinct goods. Both tests must be satisfied cumulatively - The process undertaken does not result in emergence of distinct goods having their own character, identity or use and the essential character of goods remains entirely unchanged. The process of cutting, grooving and bending merely adapts the dimensions and shape for specific use and amounts to no more than preparation, sizing and installation for use as cladding or facade material. The final steps of erecting frame at site, fixing the cut and grooved panels onto frame using angles, clamps and sealing gaps are installation activities that do not result in creation of new distinct goods - The test of whether a distinct product has come into existence is not merely a test of physical transformation but a collective test of transformation into new product. The question is whether goods could be regarded as different commercially, not whether they look different. Mere cutting and adaptation of dimensions does not constitute manufacture. The location where the process is carried out and the fact that specifications are given by the assessee do not elevate such activities to the level of manufacture - The distinction between "processing" and "manufacturing" is critical. For an activity to amount to manufacture, it must produce a "transformation" resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character or use, not merely process goods that retain their substantial identity - The process undertaken by the assessee does not result in a distinct product and therefore does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the CEA, 1944 - The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Burden of proof – Marketability of goods – Burden and standard of proof required to be satisfied for establishing marketability of manufactured goods – HELD - The burden of establishing marketability of manufactured goods lies on the Revenue and must be discharged by demonstrating objective evidence that the goods are marketable - Marketable goods must be capable of standing alone in the market, recognized or traded on the basis of what they are, not on the basis of what they were. Goods are marketable when they are capable of being bought or sold in the market or are understood to be available in the market as a distinct and independent product known in commercial parlance or to the commercial community for purposes of buying and selling. Marketability must be established by objective evidence, not by assertion or assumption. The conduct of the assessee in paying excise duty in the past cannot serve as evidence of marketability. Mere mention in dictionaries or chemical directories does not establish marketability - Market enquiries must be substantiated with actual contents rather than mere reference to having conducted an enquiry. The Revenue must affirmatively demonstrate by placing adequate material on record - The burden of proving marketability of goods lies on the Revenue, and it must be discharged through objective evidence demonstrating that the goods are commercially known, capable of being bought and sold in the market as distinct products, according to a standard of proof calibrated to the specific nature and character of the goods in question - Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Excisability of goods - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to decide questions relating to excisability of goods under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the excisability of goods under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the question of excisability is intrinsically connected with the determination of rate of duty for purposes of assessment, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L(1)(b) - The expression "determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment" in Section 35G must be interpreted to include questions of excisability, as excisability is a precursor to assessment and has direct and proximate relationship with rate of duty - The jurisdiction of the High Court is a creature of statute and conditions precedent to its exercise must be strictly construed. The mere fact that a question is framed as a question of law does not confer jurisdiction if the underlying subject matter of the order falls within the exclusionary bracket - The High Court therefore erred in entertaining the appeal on the question of excisability and the matter should have been brought before the Supreme Court - Clarificatory nature and retrospective application of sub-section (2) of Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35L(2) was inserted by Finance Act, 2014 to clarify that determination of disputes relating to taxability or excisability of goods is covered under the expression "determination of any question having a relation to rate of duty" – Whether sub-section (2) of Section 35L inserted by Finance Act, 2014 is clarificatory in nature and whether it has retrospective effect – HELD - The true test of whether an amendment is clarificatory depends not on the label attached to it but on whether the amendment, on purposive and contextual reading, makes explicit what was already implicit in the original provision - The Finance Bill Notes on Clauses specifically stated that the amendment seeks to clarify that determination of disputes relating to taxability or excisability is covered under the expression "determination of any question having a relation to rate of duty". The amendment does not create any new right of appeal, vest new jurisdiction in any court, impose new obligation upon assessees, or alter the mechanism of assessment. It merely clarifies that questions of excisability always fell within the expression "rate of duty," and any doubt to the contrary was unwarranted. The amendment was introduced to clarify the position of law, remove existing doubts, and correct judicial error, rendering it declaratory in nature. Procedural amendments and clarificatory amendments are presumed to be retrospective unless there is express indication to the contrary - The sub-section (2) of Section 35L operates retrospectively from the date the principal provision came into effect. [Read less]

2026-VIL-922-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Clubbing of clearances of sister concerns – SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 C.E. - Revenue identified three sister concerns operating from different premises with separate registrations, power connections, bank accounts and income tax returns – Authorities issued show cause notice to the main unit proposing to club the clearances of these three sister concerns to deny SSI exemption and demand excise duty without issuing separate show cause notices to the three sister concerns - Whether the clubbing of clearances of three sister concerns with that of the main unit for determining aggregate value of clearances for SSI exemption can be sustained – HELD – The clubbing of clearances of sister concerns cannot be sustained without issuing separate show cause notices to those units. The authority must put the sister concerns on statutory notice indicating the intention to treat them as dummy units and invite their reply with evidence to substantiate that they were independent manufacturers before clubbing their clearances. The one-sided approach to treat other units as dummy without putting them on statutory notice is unknown and unenforceable in law - Where turnover of multiple units is sought to be clubbed, all such units must be issued show cause notices. The principles of natural justice mandate that no person shall be condemned without an opportunity to present their case. The failure to comply with this legal requirement vitiates the order. The order clubbing clearances of the three sister concerns with the main unit is set aside as being in violation of natural justice and principles of law - The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed - Reliance on retracted statements without corroborative evidence - Whether statements recorded by investigating officers during investigation, which are subsequently retracted by the declarants, can be relied upon in adjudication proceedings without examining the witnesses and providing cross-examination opportunity – HELD - The reliance on retracted statements without corroborative independent evidence cannot sustain findings in adjudication proceedings. The Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates under Section 9D that statements made during inquiry shall be relevant for proving the truth of facts contained therein only when such persons are examined as witnesses before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion that statements should be admitted in evidence, following which cross-examination opportunity must be provided. This procedure is mandatory and failure to comply means no reliance can be placed on statements recorded during investigation - The fact that statements were subsequently retracted further weakens the authority's reliance on them. The commissioner's reliance on such inadmissible statements without proper justification cannot be used against the appellant – The findings based on inadmissible retracted statements without independent corroborative evidence are set aside and cannot form the basis of any demand or penalty - Allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal - Whether charges of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods can be sustained on the basis of statements, seized notebooks and speculation without documentary evidence – HELD - It is well settled legal position that charges of clandestine manufacture and removal must be established by marshaling material evidence substantiating unaccounted purchase of raw materials, evidence of manufacture, identity of buyers, transportation and delivery of goods to such buyers, and receipt of consideration. Mere speculation or assumption cannot form the basis for such serious allegations - In the present case, the comparison of seized notebooks with statutory RG1 and ER-3 returns completely negates the allegation as the statutory returns show far higher quantities than the notebooks. The revenue has not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding unaccounted raw material, unaccounted electricity consumption, unaccounted labour, or any material evidence substantiating clandestine operations - The findings of clandestine manufacture and clearance without payment of duty are set aside for want of substantiating documentary evidence - Demand of duty based on clubbing of clearances when unit itself within SSI limit - Whether duty can be demanded on the basis of aggregate clearances when the main unit's own clearances are within the SSI exemption limit – HELD - Since the main unit's own clearances as per ER-1 and ER-3 returns are within the SSI exemption limit and the demand of duty is based solely on clubbing the clearances of sister concerns which is unsustainable. Further, the unit has furnished all relevant data in its returns and the revenue department has not disputed or denied the figures. When facts are within the knowledge of the department and disclosed by the assessee in its returns, the department cannot later allege suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. If the unit was not eligible for SSI exemption on the basis of its own clearances for any particular period, the Department should have initiated proceedings immediately upon disclosure in returns rather than waiting for investigation and then alleging suppression. The longer period of limitation under Section 11A(4) cannot be invoked in such circumstances - The demand of duty based on clubbing of clearances is unsustainable and is set aside - Confiscation of goods - Whether goods can be confiscated under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 when the authority relies only on retracted statement of the possessor without any other admissible and relevant documentary evidence that the goods were non-duty paid. – HELD - The confiscation of goods requires substantiation that the goods are non-duty paid excisable goods. The authority cannot rely on retracted statements without other admissible and relevant documentary evidence to establish non-duty payment status of seized goods. In the present case, the proprietor had retracted his statement by filing an affidavit. No other documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove that the goods in question were manufactured and cleared by the main unit without payment of duty. The seizure proceeds are solely based on the retracted statement and the speculation regarding clandestine removal which stands disapproved - The order of confiscation of goods is set aside - Personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Whether personal penalties can be imposed when the findings regarding clandestine manufacture and confiscation of goods are set aside – HELD - The personal penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable only if two conditions are cumulatively satisfied: first, the person has personally dealt with excisable goods, and second, the person has personally dealt with excisable goods with knowledge or having reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation - The Rule 26 requires as a condition precedent that excisable goods which the person knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation. In the present case, the clubbing of clearances which forms the basis of all charges stands disapproved, the allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal stand disapproved, and consequently the confiscation order stands set aside. Since the goods are not liable for confiscation, the condition precedent for imposing personal penalty does not exist – The personal penalties imposed under Rule 26 are set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-920-CESTAT-ALH-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Exemption to water supply services to local authorities - Appellant entered into contracts with municipal water Departments for operation and maintenance of drinking water treatment plants at various locations - Whether the services for operation and maintenance of drinking water plants supplied to municipal authorities qualify for exemption under Entry No. 25 of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST – HELD - The services rendered by the Appellant pertains to the operation of Nalkoop at different locations. The services rendered to municipal water Departments pertain to the supply of water, which c... [Read more]

2026-VIL-537-DEL | High Court SGST

GST – Failure to refund IGST on exports through foreign post offices – Whether the customs authorities are obligated under section 16(3) of the IGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to process and grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported through foreign post offices when regulatory procedures for such refunds were not prescribed during the export period – HELD - While the customs officers appear handicapped due to the absence of prescribed procedures by the CBIC, this administrative failure does not absolve the respondents of their statutory obligation. The statutory mandate clearly entitle registered... [Read more]

2026-VIL-927-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of Bluetooth Wireless Headsets under Customs Tariff – Appellant imported Bluetooth wireless headsets, earbuds and neckbands classifying under Customs Tariff Item 85176290 - Revenue contends that the goods are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 85183000 as "headphones and earphones whether or not combined with a microphone" – Whether Bluetooth wireless headsets with mobile telephony function, which are transceivers capable of receiving radio frequency analog signals from other devices and converting them into digital signals and transmitting them back in a wireless network, are classifiable ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-926-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Enhancement of Declared Value based on NIDB Data – Validity of enhancement in value based solely on NIDB data without corroborative evidence, contemporaneous import comparisons, or cogent material and without proper recording of reasons – HELD - The reasonable doubt contemplated under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules must be based on empirical and legally justifiable factors informed by objectivity. Mere reliance on NIDB data alone without independent, cogent evidence or corroborative material cannot form the basis for value reassessment - The acceptance of enhanced value under compulsion does not con... [Read more]

2026-VIL-931-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Exemption of Services under Notification No. 45/2010-ST for Transmission and Distribution of Electricity - Revenue contention that the services provided for setting up of power generation and transmission equipment prior to actual generation of electricity cannot be considered as services in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity - Whether services rendered for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of power transmission and distribution infrastructure constitute services "in relation to transmission and distribution of electricity" eligible for exemption under Notification No. 45/2010-ST, even when such services are provided during the preparatory phase before commencement of actual electricity generation and distribution - HELD – The services rendered fall squarely within the ambit of Notification No. 45/2010-ST which exempts services provided "in relation to" transmission and distribution of electricity. The phrase "in relation to" has been consistently interpreted by courts to include preparatory, enabling and supportive activities integrally connected to transmission and distribution networks. The fact that electricity generation and distribution had not commenced at the time of providing the services does not exclude such services from the exemption as the contracts were with entities engaged in transmission and distribution of electricity and the services were directly linked to establishing the infrastructure necessary for such transmission and distribution - The findings recorded by the Commissioner are well-reasoned and fully supported by statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents - The order-in-original dropping the entire service tax demand is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed - Taxability of Transportation and Freight Charges as GTA Service - Whether separately quantified freight and insurance charges recovered for transportation, handling and delivery of equipment as part of supply and erection contracts constitute taxable Goods Transport Agency Service or Transport of Goods by Road Service, or whether such charges form an incidental and ancillary part of the composite erection contract exempt from taxation – HELD - The service tax is required to be paid as per the amount mentioned in the consignment note and the applicable statutory rules. Absent consignment notes and evidence of who the actual transporter or carrier was and whether the consignor or consignee was liable under the consignment note, service tax cannot be appropriately levied on the freight and insurance collected from clients - The transportation undertaken was incidental to the execution of erection contracts and does not constitute a standalone taxable service. The service provider did not qualify as a GTA under the statutory definition and the manner in which service tax was demanded on freight and insurance is against the provisions of the Service Tax Rules - The order-in-original dropping the GTA service demand is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-932-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Reconciliation of Commission Payments Across Multiple Offices - Service tax demand arising from discrepancies between commission amounts shown in trial balance vis-à-vis ST-3 returns for multiple assessment periods - Whether service tax liability can be confirmed based on journal entries in Trial Balance when the service tax on commission payments for some branches were considered and discharged by centralized offices – HELD - While the appellant is not disputing the levy of service tax on commission per se, it has brought to notice that it has a practice of discharging service tax liabilities at its Kolka... [Read more]

2026-VIL-929-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-declaration of retained onboard cargo - Appellant-steamer agent discovered that it retained onboard from a previous export voyage and had not been declared in the manifest. Upon learning of the retained onboard cargo from its principals, the appellant approached the Customs authorities seeking amendment of the manifest under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act. The master of the vessel subsequently admitted that he had not declared the retained onboard cargo in the boarding documents and accepted such omission as his own mistake - Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed on a steamer agent for non-declaration of retained onboard cargo – HELD - The penalty under Section 112(a) for aiding and abetting cannot be imposed in the absence of culpable conduct and mens rea. Mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission or communication failure does not ipso facto attract penal consequences under this section. The role of a steamer agent is to declare goods as informed by the master of the vessel in the manifest. The master himself admitted that the omission to declare the retained onboard cargo was his mistake, and at no point did he allege any collusion, knowledge, intention or deliberate acts on the part of the steamer agent. The steamer agent's immediate action in filing an amendment application upon receiving confirmation of the retained onboard cargo demonstrates bona fide conduct and lack of fraudulent intent – Further, the retained onboard cargo never acquired the legal character of imported goods as it remained continuously onboard the vessel, was never unloaded in India, no B/E was ever filed for it, and it was ultimately discharged at foreign ports - The filing full and correct manifest primarily rests upon the master of the vessel and other agencies cannot be held liable for penal consequences where lapses arise from communication failure without fraudulent intent - The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-934-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Cenvat credit on running account bills, Invocation of extended period of limitation - Whether Cenvat credit can be availed based on running account bills and payment orders even if they are not specifically mentioned as prescribed documents under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Demand invoking extended period of limitation – HELD - The Cenvat credit availed on running account bills read with payment orders containing substantial particulars such as name and address of service provider, details of service recipient, description of service, service tax registration number, and service tax amoun... [Read more]

2026-VIL-936-CESTAT-KOL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Benefit of abatement on the Gross Contract Value under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - Denial of Abatement on Construction Services on the ground that the assessee had not claimed the abatement in its service tax returns - Whether the substantive benefit of abatement can be denied merely because the assessee failed to claim it in the returns filed – HELD - Where the facts establishing eligibility for abatement are admitted or established on record through documentary evidence such as bills, invoices, and certificates from chartered professionals, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of ab... [Read more]

2026-VIL-928-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Availability of Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission services rendered by commission agents engaged in promoting, canvassing orders and effecting sales – Denial of credit on the ground that activities of commission agents constitute post-removal activities falling outside the scope of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether Cenvat credit is available on sales commission services – HELD - The Cenvat Credit Rules have been amended to include an explanation to Rule 2(l) clarifying that sales promotion includes services by way of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. The aforesaid explanati... [Read more]

2026-VIL-933-CESTAT-KOL-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Entitlement of CENVAT Credit on the basis of Consolidated Challans – Appellant availed CENVAT credit on the basis of consolidated challans – Denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the consolidated challans did not constitute proper documents as required under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether consolidated challans containing full details as required under Rule 9(2) of the CCR, 2004, constitute valid documents for availing CENVAT credit – HELD - The consolidated challans, having full details as required under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, are valid documents and th... [Read more]

2026-VIL-50-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Bail condition – Petitioner-accused arrested for fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(i) read with Sections 132(1)(i) and 135(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 is granted bail subject to furnishing security bond equal to the amount claimed as tax and penalty - Whether the condition imposing security bond equal to undetermined tax and penalty amount is valid and enforceable – HELD - The condition imposed is onerous and vague as the tax and penalty amount has not yet been determined. Imposing a condition for security equivalent to a yet-to-be-determined amount is vague and unreasonable - The ac... [Read more]

2026-VIL-930-CESTAT-ALH-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Determination of Country of Origin – Rejection of Certificates of Origin without Verification from Exporting Country Authority - Whether Certificates of Origin issued by competent authorities of exporting countries can be rejected and the claimed country of origin can be disregarded without conducting proper verification from the issuing authorities of those countries and without evidence of fraudulent procurement of such certificates – HELD - The Certificates of Origin cannot be discarded or rejected without verification of their authenticity from the competent authorities of the exporting countries. When goods are accompanied by Certificates of Origin issued by the competent authorities of exporting countries, these certificates carry presumptive value as they are issued only after verification of the goods by those authorities. The proper procedure for verification is prescribed under Rule 6 of the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, which requires the customs authorities to make a formal verification request to the Verification Authority of the exporting country when there is doubt regarding the genuineness or authenticity of the certificate. The tribunal observes that no such verification request has been placed on record in the present case - Since the only evidence relied upon to contradict the certificates is inadmissible electronic evidence without corroboration, the country of origin as certified in the valid Certificates of Origin must be accepted - The impugned order to the extent that it rejected the country of origin as declared in Certificates of Origin and concluded that goods were of Chinese origin without proper verification from exporting country authorities is set aside - Customs - Admissibility of Electronic Evidence – Computer Printouts from Hard Disk and Mobile Devices - Whether computer printouts obtained from seized electronic devices can be admitted as evidence in customs proceedings in the absence of a certificate issued under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, and whether such documents can be authenticated merely by the fact that the person involved signed the panchnama prepared by the revenue officers – HELD - Computer printouts from electronic devices are not admissible as evidence in customs proceedings without a proper certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act. Section 138C(4) prescribes a mandatory requirement that any electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate containing specific details about the device, the manner of production, and the conditions under which the computer was operated. The mere fact that the director signed a panchnama does not constitute compliance with this statutory requirement, nor does it authenticate the genuineness of the extracted documents. The signing of a panchnama in a separate room without the person's awareness of whether data was actually extracted does not satisfy the legal requirement for authentication. The oral evidence or panchnama signatures cannot substitute for the mandatory written certificate - The electronic devices were not produced before the adjudicating authority and therefore cannot be treated as primary evidence. Additionally, no independent enquiry was conducted from the persons mentioned in the alleged documents, making the printouts unreliable and unverified - The impugned order is set aside to the extent that it relied upon electronic evidence in the form of computer printouts and WhatsApp chats for establishing allegations against the importer - Valuation of Imported Goods – Application of Customs Valuation Rules to goods cleared for home consumption - Whether the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can be applied to determine or re-determine the value of goods that have already been cleared by customs for home consumption, and whether a proforma invoice can be used as the basis for enhancement of the declared value of imported goods – HELD - The Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can be applied only to imported goods, and goods that have already been cleared by customs for home consumption cease to be imported goods. The definition of imported goods in Section 2(25) of the Customs Act clearly provides that goods brought from outside India remain as imported goods only till their clearance for home consumption. Once cleared by customs, they lose the character of imported goods and the valuation rules become inapplicable. Therefore, the re-determination of value of already-cleared goods cannot be justified - Furthermore, a proforma invoice is in the nature of a quotation or offer and does not constitute a valid basis for enhancement of value of imported goods. The proforma invoices relied upon were recovered from the hard disk in the absence of a valid certificate under Section 138C and are therefore inadmissible as evidence. Additionally, no evidence has been produced to show that the importer actually paid or was required to pay the higher value mentioned in the proforma invoices - The impugned order to the extent that it re-determined the declared value of goods already cleared for home consumption is set aside, and consequently, the differential duty demand based on such re-valuation is not sustainable - Admissibility of Statements – Voluntariness and Corroboration Requirement - Whether statements recorded under duress or coercion without proper procedural safeguards can be relied upon to support a demand of duty, and whether mere confession statements without independent corroborative evidence can form the basis of adjudication – HELD - The statements recorded under duress or coercion cannot be relied upon to support demands or penalties - The impugned order to the extent that it relied upon statements of the director without independent corroborative evidence and without addressing the issue of voluntariness and duress is set aside - Imposition of Penalty – Whether penalties can be imposed on company Directors when the main demand against the company has failed or when specific evidence of individual involvement of the officials is not brought on record – HELD - Since the main allegations against the importing company have not been sustained and the demand for duty is not maintainable, the imposition of penalty on the company under Section 114A is not justified. Furthermore, penalties on company officials cannot survive independently when the main case against the company fails, unless specific and independent evidence of individual involvement of such officials is brought on record. In the present case, no such independent evidence of individual involvement has been adduced against the Director. Mere role in signing documents or making statements when the underlying transaction is not established as fraudulent does not constitute sufficient evidence for imposing penalty on officials - The impugned order to the extent that it imposed penalties under Section 114A against the company and under Sections 112 and 114AA against the company Director is set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-20-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – Haryana AAAR - Export of Services or Intermediary Services – Supply of sales and marketing consulting and manpower/HR consulting services to foreign entity. The AAR order classified the services as intermediary services - The appellant claims the services qualify as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 - Whether the services qualify as export of services or intermediary services – HELD - The appellant arranges and facilitates the supply of services between the foreign entity and the Indian client. There are three distinct parties involved and the services are performed and consumed within... [Read more]

2026-VIL-23-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – Haryana AAAR - Classification of Brake Hoses - The Advance Ruling Authority order held that the product merits classification under Chapter 87 - Whether brake hoses, despite being designed and used exclusively in automotive braking systems, should be classified as vulcanized rubber hoses under Chapter 40 or as motor vehicle parts under Chapter 87 – HELD – As per General Rule of Interpretation 3(b), the rubber component gives the product its essential character, being the principal determinant of its function and utility. The material composition reveals that the product is fundamentally a general-purpose vulcan... [Read more]

2026-VIL-538-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Duty to pass reasoned order, Failure to consider submissions – In remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority again passed an order confirming the same demand without adverting to any of the submissions made by the petitioner during the personal hearing or in the written replies – Validity of the order passed by the adjudicating authority in remand proceedings – HELD - The Adjudicating Authorities' approach of not considering the petitioner's submissions even in the second round of litigation requires to be deprecated. When the High Court remands a matter for de novo consideration with express directions to ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-539-BOM | High Court SGST

GST - Service of Show Cause Notice at incorrect address and email-id - Violation of Natural Justice - Upon migration to the GST regime the petitioner updated its principal place of business and additional place of business addresses along with new email IDs on the GST registration certificate and portal. Despite maintaining updated address and email information with the tax authorities, the show cause notice was served at the old registered address and the old email ID - Whether an order passed by the tax authorities without serving the show cause notice at the correct and current registered address and email ID, as per th... [Read more]

2026-VIL-21-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – Rajasthan AAAR - Classification of Biodegradable Bags – Appellant is engaged in supply of compostable plastic bags having certifications from Pollution Control Board, and international testing agencies confirming biodegradability and compostability - Entitlement to concessional GST rate of 5 percent under Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 inserted vide Serial No. 319 in Schedule-I for "Paper Sacks/Bags and Biodegradable Bags" under Chapters 39 and 48 - The AAR declined to conclusively determine biodegradability, holding that determination of biodegradability and compostability is a scie... [Read more]

2026-VIL-22-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST - Liability to GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Government Services – GST on Permission, Road Cutting, Reinstatement and Ground Rent Charges – Appellant sought Advance Ruling regarding liability to pay GST under RCM on permission charges, road cutting charges, reinstatement charges and ground rent charges levied by the State PWD authorities for laying pipelines and cables – The AAR order held that GST is leviable on permission, charges, reinstatement charges, road cutting charges and ground rent charges - Whether GST is leviable on permission charges, reinstatement charges, road cutting charges and ground re... [Read more]

2026-VIL-19-AAAR | AAAR SGST

GST – Goa AAAR - Exemption to Supply of Drinking Water subjected to chlorination - Appellant supplies drinking water sourced from a PWD well or storage tank through water tankers in bulk quantities to an educational institution for students - Whether such supply of chlorinated water qualifies for exemption under Entry No. 99 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 – HELD - The term "purified" was omitted from the exclusion categories of Entry No. 99 vide amendment through Notification No. 7/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022 (effective from 18.07.2022). The Circular No. 56/26/2018-GST dated... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements