More Judgements

Home

More Judgements

2026-VIL-531-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Taxability of ocean freight charges collected by a multimodal transport operator - Appellant arranges for the transportation of export/import cargo in containers by sea through shipping agencies. The appellant collects the negotiated and agreed amount from the customers as ocean freight charges in the case of exports and imports - Department of the view that the appellant had made arrangements with the shipping companies for the provision of international freight service for the transportation of goods on their own account and the ocean freight charges with markup received as 'consideration' for the services ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-530-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act on Customs House Agent for facilitating smuggling of goods - The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, permitted the use of his CHA licence without due diligence and supervision, which facilitated the attempted smuggling of red sanders -Whether a penalty can be imposed on a CHA under Section 114 of the Customs Act in such a case - HELD - The Section 114 has two limbs, any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which would render such goods liable to confiscation, and abetment of such an act - The first limb does not require proof of consciou... [Read more]

2026-VIL-527-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value - The importer, a trader and an importer of goods, imported Ferro Silicon and Magnesium Fello Silicon from Bhutan through Land Customs Station at Jaigaon. The department demanded differential duty by including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer contended that the FOB value is the deemed CIF value as there is no transit time and no-man's land between the Bhutan and India border, and hence the freight and insurance charges need not be added - HELD - On merits, the importer's... [Read more]

2026-VIL-526-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Banking and Other Financial Services - Corporate Guarantee - Whether service tax is payable under RCM on corporate guarantees provided by an overseas parent company for credit facilities availed by its Indian subsidiary – HELD - Any service rendered without consideration cannot be held to be a taxable service. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the appellant paid any consideration to their overseas parent company for the corporate guarantees issued for the loans secured by them - Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., where... [Read more]

2026-VIL-02-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Classification of PVC extrusion machine i.e. “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories” - HELD - The “High Speed PVC Four Pipe Extrusion Line with Accessories are classifiable under Heading 8477, which covers machinery for working plastics. Having regard to the principal function of the machine as extrusion, the continuous nature of the process involved, and the applicability of Notes 3 and 4 to Section XVI relating to composite machines and functional units, the entire assembly, being an integrated extrusion system for the manufacture of PVC/CPVC pipes wherein the extruder performs the ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-03-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-519-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Exemption for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity – Appellant received services relating to erection, commissioning, installation and dismantling of transmission towers, lines and substations, as well as construction and allied works at substations, through contractors - Demand of service tax on various services received by the appellant, such as works contract service, manpower supply service, and rent-a-cab service, under the reverse charge mechanism - Whether the services received by the appellant for the purpose of transmission and distribution of electricity are exempt from service tax – HELD – The Section 66D(k) of the Finance Act, 1994 excludes “transmission or distribution of electricity by an electricity transmission or distribution utility”, from service tax. While Section 66D(k) excludes transmission or distribution of electricity by a utility, it does not expressly extend the exclusion to direct or ancillary services. However, transmission or distribution of electricity cannot be done in a vacuum and require the involvement of a transmission or distribution system supported by direct or ancillary services in successfully undertaking the said service. The principle that tax relief provisions for public utility services should be broadly or liberally construed to advance the legislative intent of public benefit is well-established tax jurisprudence - The Gujarat High Court in Torrent Power Ltd. v. UoI and the Rajasthan High Court in Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI, held that the expression "transmission and distribution of electricity" encompasses not only the core activity but also all direct and ancillary services having a proximate and integral nexus, without which transmission or distribution would not be possible or commercially impracticable - The Tribunal applied the "dependence test" to determine whether the impugned services are integrally connected with the entire process of transmission or distribution of electricity, without which such service would be impossible or commercially inexpedient. The works contract service and manpower supply service are directly related to the transmission and distribution of electricity and are therefore exempt. However, the rent-a-cab service does not have a direct and proximate nexus with the transmission or distribution of electricity and is therefore would not be exempted from the payment of tax on partial reverse charge basis - while the demand warrants to be dropped on merits in the case of ‘works contract service’ and ‘manpower service’, the SCN is time barred in the case of ‘rent-a-cab service’ - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-534-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand on freight charges paid to goods transport operators (GTOs) - The appellant, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, paid freight charges to GTOs during the period 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998, a period during which service tax was applicable on GTO services. The revenue issued a show cause notice demanding service tax, interest and penalties from the appellant - Whether the confirmation of service tax demand made on the appellant on the value of the taxable services rendered to the appellant by the goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-97 to 1-6-98 demanded under SCN dated 22.03.2002 is tenable - ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-532-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Services Tax - Taxability of services provided by foreign agents - The appellant is engaged in providing various services including operating a shipping line and functioning as a Multimodal Transport Operator. It appoints foreign agents to complete port formalities on behalf of its customers and pays commission to these agents in foreign currency - Whether the services provided by the foreign agents are taxable under 'Business Auxiliary Services' or 'Steamer Agent Services' under the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD - The services provided by the foreign agents cannot be classified as 'Business Auxiliary Services' as the appellant... [Read more]

2026-VIL-533-CESTAT-ALH-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Transportation services – Demand of service tax based on third-party information received from the Income Tax Department showing receipts of income to the appellant - Whether the service tax demand is sustainable on merits and within the period of limitation - HELD - The demand for the period prior to October 2015 is barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued in December 2020, beyond the 5-year limitation period. For the remaining period from October 2015 to March 2016, there was no positive evidence of fraud or suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation - Further, the sh... [Read more]

2026-VIL-528-CESTAT-BLR-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of 'Expanded Space Fire Clay Grog' - Whether the impugned products are classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as claimed by the appellant or under CTH 6806 2000 as claimed by the Revenue - HELD - Based on the technical literature provided by the manufacturer, the Chemical Examiner's report, and the certification issued by the British Ceramic Confederation, the impugned products are rightly classifiable under CTH 6902 9010 as 'Fire clay bricks and shapes' - The products are ceramic in nature and are shaped before firing, satisfying the conditions for classification under CTH 6902. The Revenue's reliance o... [Read more]

2026-VIL-529-CESTAT-BLR-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Eligibility for customs duty exemption on imported goods used for construction of roads - Appellant imported "Toll collection and traffic control equipments" during the period 2012 claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 - Revenue alleged that the conditions mentioned under the said notification, particularly Sl.No.9(a)(iii) and clause (b), were not fulfilled - Whether the appellant-1 is eligible for the benefit of customs duty exemption under Sl.No.368 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 on the imported goods used for construction of roads - HELD - The appellant has... [Read more]

2026-VIL-522-CESTAT-BLR-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Denial of CENVAT credit on account of incorrect consignee name - discrepancy in invoice and documentary irregularities - whether credit can be denied despite substantive evidence of receipt and use of inputs - HELD – The denial of CENVAT credit merely on account of procedural discrepancies such as incorrect consignee name, issuance of revised invoice with minor variation in description, or mismatch in internal records is not sustainable when substantive conditions of receipt, duty payment, and utilization of inputs are duly established - The evidence including purchase orders, transport documents, paym... [Read more]

2026-VIL-29-SC-CE | Supreme Court CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Benefit of Exemption Notification under notification Nos. 75/84-CE dated 01.03.1984 and 4/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 on purchase of Naphtha - "Intended Use" vs. "Actual Use" – Appellant procured Naphtha at nil rate of duty for manufacture of fertilizer - Whether the benefit of exemption is available when Naphtha and natural gas are used simultaneously in a common boiler to generate steam, part of which is used for non-fertilizer purposes – HELD - The eligibility for exemption hinges on the expression "intended use" specified in the notifications. Once an assessee is held to be eligible for exemption, the notification must be liberally construed. In the present case, the appellant, a public sector undertaking, procured Naphtha with the clear intention of using it as fuel for the production of ammonia and fertilizer - The fact that Naphtha and natural gas were fed into a common boiler making it impossible to ascertain the exact quantity of each fuel used for specific outputs does not negate the "intended use." Merely because the final destination of the steam could not be conclusively determined, the benefit cannot be denied, especially when the total Naphtha procured was insufficient even to meet the full requirement of the fertilizer plant alone. The "intended use" purpose is satisfied if the goods are procured for the declared objective. Therefore, the demand for duty based on proportionate arithmetical calculations of diversion is unsustainable - Appeals allowed - Limitation - Extended Period - Suppression of Facts - Revenue Neutrality - Whether the revenue was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation and imposing penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The invocation of the extended period of limitation is unwarranted. Suppression must be deliberate and with a positive intent to evade duty - In this case, the appellant is a public sector undertaking receiving Government subsidies, and any duty paid would be reimbursed, rendering the exercise revenue-neutral. There is no evidence of a mala fide intent to evade payment of duty as the appellant would derive no gain from such evasion. Furthermore, the Department continued to issue CT-2 certificates despite being aware of the manufacturing process, indicating that facts were within their knowledge. Since no deliberate suppression or intention to evade has been established, the proviso to Section 11A(1) is not attracted and the demand is barred by limitation. [Read less]

2026-VIL-524-CESTAT-CHE-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Import of imported ‘Aluminium Scrap Tread’ - Exemption under Free Trade Agreement - Denial based on absence of country of origin marking on imported scrap - HELD – The entitlement to preferential exemption under Free Trade Agreement cannot be denied merely on the ground that the imported goods did not bear physical markings indicating country of origin, when the nature of goods (scrap) inherently does not permit such marking - The description of goods was sufficiently detailed and consistent to enable proper identification of the goods by Customs officers. In these circumstances, the absence of country-of... [Read more]

2026-VIL-521-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – GTA Service liability absent consignment note - Whether the appellant are required to pay service tax on reverse charge mechanism basis as per Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 on the cost of transportation incurred for transport of Iron ore fines from their mines to the port of export - HELD - The service tax liability under goods transport agency arises only when the service provider qualifies as a goods transport agency, which necessarily requires issuance of a consignment note evidencing assumption of responsibility for goods; mere hiring of individual trucks without issuance of consignment no... [Read more]

2026-VIL-525-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Limitation - Suppression of facts with intent to evade service tax - Whether the demand is wholly barred by limitation as contended by the appellant given that the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period – HELD - The appellant was regularly filing returns and had disclosed the details of the credit availed. The department's internal audit group had also conducted a verification of the records and issued a spot memo - Mere non-payment of duty or omission to give certain information is not suppression of fact unless it is deliberate with an intention to evade payment. The burden is on the depart... [Read more]

2026-VIL-523-CESTAT-BLR-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Classification of service of transportation of fly ash with incidental loading/unloading - Whether taxable as ‘Cargo Handling Service’ - HELD - For a service to fall under ‘cargo handling’, the essential requirement is handling of ‘cargo’ involving activities like loading, unloading, packing or unpacking in relation to goods meant for commercial transportation. In the present case, the appellant engaged in the removal of fly ash from the boiler which emerges during the course of manufacture of paper - the principal and only activity of the appellant is to remove the fly ash from the boiler bins so... [Read more]

2026-VIL-05-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

2026-VIL-536-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Reversal of common CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant, engaged in manufacture of printing and writing paper, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used commonly and opted for proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3A) - Department alleged that the appellant had incorrectly applied the formula by restricting it to common input services and by not properly including the value of electricity generated at windmills and traded goods. The appellant contended that for the purpose of Rule 6(3A), the term "total CENVAT credit" refers only to total common input service credit and not to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods - HELD - The appellant has correctly applied Rule 6(3A) by confining the computation to common credit and by including the value of electricity generated and trading turnover for the purpose of determining proportionate reversal. The interpretation adopted in the impugned orders, which loads exclusive dutiable credit into the formula and seeks to substitute the statutory option exercised by the appellant, is contrary to the scheme of Rule 6 and settled judicial precedent - Further, the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice to the extent it confirms demand on grounds not specifically alleged therein - The extended period of limitation under Section 11A is not invocable as there is no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts - Accordingly, the demands are set aside and the penalties imposed are also deleted - The appeals were allowed - Scope of Show Cause Notice - HELD - The adjudication cannot travel beyond the allegations in the Show Cause Notice. The SCN is the foundation of the case and defines the scope of adjudication. By confirming demand under an interpretation not put to the appellant's notice in the SCN and by effectively substituting the option chosen by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has enlarged the scope of the proceedings, which is legally impermissible - Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 11A - HELD - Where the dispute is purely interpretational and the assessee has disclosed all relevant particulars in statutory returns, invocation of the extended period is impermissible in law. The department has not established any deliberate withholding of information. In the absence of any allegation in the Show Cause Notice establishing intent to evade duty with supporting material, the extended period cannot be sustained merely on interpretational differences - Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC - HELD - Where the dispute pertains to interpretation of statutory provisions and the assessee has acted on a plausible interpretation supported by judicial decisions, imposition of penalty is not justified. In the present case, there is no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression of facts. Therefore, the essential pre-condition for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC is not satisfied. Accordingly, the penalties imposed were set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-292-TEL | High Court SGST

GST - Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), 132(5), and 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Arrest and Remand, Tax Evasion through Online Gaming Syndicate - Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India – Petitioner, CEO of a payment bank, was arrested by the DGGI for allegedly masterminding an organized syndicate involved in operating illegal online gaming websites through shell entities, leading to tax evasion – The petitioner challenged the arrest and subsequent remand order as arbitrary and illegal, contending that his movement was restricted from the moment investigative officers entered his office, thereby making his production before a Magistrate beyond the mandated 24-hour period – HELD - The officials entered the premises based on valid search authorizations and summons for recording statements. The mere presence of officers during a search does not constitute "custody" or "arrest" until the formal arrest is executed – Following the conclusion of a search and the recording of a voluntary statement, the formal arrest occurred at 05:50 AM on 27.02.2026. The production before the Magistrate at 08:30 PM on the same day was well within the 24-hour statutory limit prescribed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India – The evidence gathered during investigation indicated an organized syndicate operating illegal online gaming websites through associated fintech companies and shell entities. The petitioner, as CEO, was identified as a mastermind in a scheme involving the routing of funds without proper invoices, leading to a calculated tax evasion of approximately Rs.840 crores. The investigation revealed a systemic failure in risk monitoring and the use of dummy program managers to facilitate fund movements. Such offences under Section 132(1)(a) and (i) are cognizable and non-bailable - The requirements for prior notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS do not strictly apply to serious economic offences. The non-cooperation and evasive replies of the petitioner during the investigation provided further grounds for custodial interrogation - The petitioners have failed to make out any grounds to interfere in the matter. The writ petition dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-11-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Calculation of Profiteering amount - DGAP alleged that the respondent had profiteered by not passing the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the home buyers through commensurate reduction in the prices of the flats – HELD - The profiteered amount should be calculated by considering the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then dividing the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer - The respondent had admitted to profiteering in its earlier submissions before the erstwhile National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) and the Delhi High Court. These judicial admissions are conclusive and cannot be reverted unless the respondent demonstrated that they were incorrect or made under a wrong assumption of fact - The respondent is liable to pay the profiteered amount along with 12% GST to the home buyers. The respondent is directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the profiteered amount from the date of payment of the last installment by each home buyer – Ordered accordingly - Methodology for determining profiteering – There is no fixed/uniform method or mathematical formula can be laid down for determining profiteering, and the determination of the profiteered amount has to be computed by taking into account the relevant and peculiar facts of each case - The DGAP had calculated the profiteering based on the total pre-GST period up to June 2017 and the post-GST period from July 2017 to November 2019. The DGAP had considered the total purchase value of goods and services for the project, the ratio of ITC to the purchase value in the pre-GST and post-GST periods, and the total area of the project to arrive at the profiteered amount per square feet, which was then multiplied by the total sold area to determine the total profiteered amount - The methodology adopted by the DGAP was in line with the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court, where the court had directed the authority to calculate the total savings on account of the introduction of GST for each project and then divide the same by the total area to arrive at the per square feet benefit to be passed on to each flat buyer - The Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that the DGAP's methodology was flawed and that the profiteered amount should be limited to the ITC on construction materials (goods) and not on input services. The Delhi High Court's judgment did not limit the ITC benefit to goods alone and that any benefit of reduction in tax rate or ITC, whether on goods or services, must be passed on to the consumers - The Tribunal upheld the methodology adopted by the DGAP in calculating the profiteered amount [Read less]

2026-VIL-288-DEL-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs – Treatment of DTA to SEZ Supply as Deemed Exports - Requirement of submitting Bill of Export (BOE) as proof of export obligation discharge under EPCG scheme – Appellant supplied goods to a unit in the SEZ and sought export benefits under the EPCG scheme - DGFT rejected the claim on the ground of non-submission of BOEs - Whether supplies from DTA to SEZ are "deemed exports" under the Foreign Trade Policy and whether submission of supply invoices and Bank Realisation Certificates (BRCs) is sufficient to discharge the export obligation under the EPCG scheme, or BOEs are mandatorily required – HELD – The supplies to an SEZ are not covered under any of the clauses of Para 8.2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, hence such supplies are not deemed exports. There is nothing, in Clause 8.2, to indicate that it is exhaustive of the categories of supplies which would qualify as deemed exports. While the categories of supplies enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of Para 8.2 would unquestionably qualify as deemed exports, any other supply, which conforms to Para 8.1, would also so qualify - An SEZ is not located outside the country even if, for certain purposes, supplies to the SEZ are treated as “exports” under the SEZ Act. Therefore the supply by appellant to SEZ satisfy the description of “deemed exports”, as contained in para 8.1 - The supplies from DTA to SEZ units constitute "deemed exports" under the Foreign Trade Policy - The DGFT's contention that the SEZ Act and Rules override the FTP and HBP provisions is rejected as the SEZ Act and Rules primarily govern the functioning of SEZs and are not concerned with export incentives available to DTA units – The supply invoices accompanied by BRCs are sufficient evidence to discharge the export obligation under the EPCG scheme and BOEs are not mandatorily required. The DGFT's subsequent policy circular relaxed the BOE requirement for supplies to SEZs under the Advance Authorization scheme, and it would be unreasonable to deny EPCG benefits to the appellant merely for not submitting BOEs - The Review Petition filed by Union of India is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-520-CESTAT-DEL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs – Mis-declaration of service under Service Export from India Scrips – SCN issued alleging that appellant falsely declared the services exported as “Management Consulting Services? though the services rendered were “Information Technology and IT-Enabled Services? - These scrips were subsequently transferred to third parties who utilized them for duty-free imports before the licensing authority cancelled the scrips ab-initio based on the mis-declaration - Appellant challenge the confiscation of the goods as well as the levy of penalty – HELD - The fact that DGFT, Bengaluru had cancelled the SEIS scrips void ab-initio implies that exemption was never available to the appellant as they had wilfully mis-declared their services as “Management Consulting Services? in Annexure-3B submitted before the DGFT, whereas they were rendering “Information Technology? and “Software Service and Information Technology Enabled Services?. Therefore, the issue of classification of the services requires no further consideration. Once the scrips stood cancelled, the appellant was not eligible to avail the benefit thereof - The appeal filed by the Company is dismissed. The impugned order in so far as it imposes the penalty on employee is set aside – The appeals are partly allowed - Whether the Customs authorities could validly invoke Section 28AAA to recover duty from the original scrip holder – HELD – The SEIS scrips were obtained by mis-declaration as to the nature of services and the same were utilised by transferring the same to M/s MMTC who utilised the same for payment of customs duty in the import of goods. It is also an admitted position that DGFT Bengaluru had cancelled the SEIS scrips void ab-initio – Consequently, the duty relatable to such utilisation of instrument shall be deemed never to have been exempted or debited, and shall be recovered from the person to whom the said instrument was issued. Considering the conditions requisite for applying the provisions of section 28AAA are satisfied and the consequences thereof follow, the provisions section 28AAA of the Act are squarely applicable - Admissibility of Evidence – Statements recorded during Investigation –Whether a voluntary, unretracted statement recorded during an investigation under Section 108 is admissible as evidence without undergoing the procedure specified in Section 138B – HELD - Since the officer's statement was voluntary, never retracted, and was further corroborated by the fact that the company had already voluntarily deposited the disputed duty and interest, no prejudice was caused by the lack of formal corss-examination. The admissions or confessions made before Customs officers are binding, and the principles of natural justice do not mandate cross-examination when the party has already admitted to the facts - Contention regarding inadmissibility of statements rejected - Imposition of penalty under the various provisions – HELD - The Tribunal set aside the personal penalty, noting that the officer was an employee who functioned according to the dictates and requirements of the company. The officer had been cooperative and fair during the investigation by admitting the ineligibility once confronted. Given that substantial penalties had already been upheld against the company under various sections of the Act, there was no justifiable reason to penalize the individual employee separately for actions taken in his professional capacity - Penalty on the officer set aside. [Read less]

2026-VIL-535-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Imposition of penalty for abetment in fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit, Settlement of case by main party under SVLDRS - Bogus LRs showing transportation of copper ingots - HELD - The appellant's admission of issuance of bogus LRs clearly establishes his abetment in availment of fraudulent Cenvat Credit by M/s. Shri Ram Tubes Pvt. Ltd. The fact that the main party's case was settled under SVLDRS does not absolve the appellant of his wrongful deeds and its consequences - The penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Imposit... [Read more]

2026-VIL-293-GAU | High Court SGST

GST - Mismatch in GSTR-1 vs. GSTR-3B – Rectification of Bona Fide Human Error – Whether excess liability shown in GSTR-1 due to clerical error is an admitted liability recoverable without granting an opportunity to the Petitioner to explain on the basis of the Explanation to Section 75(12) of the CGST Act which was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2022, held that any excess liability shown in the GSTR-1 vis-à-vis is an admitted liability and recoverable from the taxpayer - HELD - There is an admitted mismatch between the GSTR-1 Return filed by the Petitioner with that of the GSTR-3B submitted by the Petitioner. The mismatch pertains to invoices wherein in the GSTR-1 Return the Petitioner had shown that the tax component was 18% which as per the Petitioner was 12%. Additionally, there was a wrong mention of the Credit Note - The authority failed to follow the procedure under Rule 88C of the CGST Rules, 2017 which mandates an intimation and an opportunity for the taxpayer to explain such differences before recovery. The mismatch was not brought to the attention of the Petitioner as required under Rule 88C and the Respondent without affording the Petitioner the opportunity to explain the mismatch between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B had directly imposed the tax liability on the basis of the GSTR-1 Return along with interest - The Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to explain the mismatch between the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B by placing necessary materials - The State can only recover tax at the rate imposed by statute on the goods or services; if the actual tax charged was 12%, the recovery cannot be @ 18% based solely on a reporting error - The matter is remanded to allow the petitioner an opportunity to explain the mismatch with supporting materials – The impugned order is set aside and the petition is disposed of - Time Limit for availment Input Tax Credit – Impact of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 – Whether ITC can be denied for returns filed after the initial due date for Financial Year 2018-19 – HELD - The denial of Input Tax Credit on the grounds of delayed filing is no longer sustainable in view of the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5). This new provision statutorily overrides the restrictions in sub-section (4) for the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. Under Section 16(5), a registered person is entitled to take ITC in any return filed up to the 30th day of November, 2021. As the return for March 2019 was submitted on 13.03.2021, it falls well within the newly stipulated period. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the credit, and the previous order denying the same for being beyond the due date of September 2019 is interfered with and quashed – Writ Petition allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-294-UTR | High Court SGST

GST - Demand of differential tax in respect of spare parts - The Adjudicating Authority returned a specific finding that the spare parts should have been categorized under HSN code 8714 (Parts and Accessories of Vehicles of Headings 8711 to 8713) and consequently the tax was payable @ 28%, whereas it has been paid @ 18% only - Maintainability of Writ Petition — Whether a writ petition can be entertained to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal on the grounds of mandatory pre-deposit requirements – HELD – The contention that the Adjudicating Officer failed to properly consider the petitioner’s reply regarding the cl... [Read more]

2026-VIL-511-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Sponsorship Service, Sharing of advertisement expenses under ‘Co-op Partner Agreement’ - Appellant, engaged in sale of gold jewelry, entered into a Co-Op Partner Agreement with World Gold Council (WGC) to jointly promote sale of gold jewelry through media advertisements wherein the WGC agreed to share 25% of the total media expenses incurred by the appellant - Department of the view that the appellant providing "Sponsorship Service" to WGC and demanded service tax – HELD - The arrangement between the appellant and WGC does not amount to provision of any service, much less sponsorship service, by the app... [Read more]

2026-VIL-508-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Refund of excess Service Tax paid - The appellant paid excess service tax from December 2016 to May 2017 due to an inadvertent error – Rejection of refund on the ground that the refund claim was time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The excess service tax paid by the appellant was not in the nature of tax payable, but rather an inadvertent overpayment. Therefore, the limitation under Section 11B would not apply in the present case - In case of payment of tax made under mistake of law, the period of limitation as otherwise raised in terms of Section 11B of the Act would be ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-500-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Appellant is a multimodal transporter booking and selling cargo space to customers contesting demand on reimbursable expenses and the freight margin arisen due to the difference between the price at which cargo space is booked by the appellant and the price at which it is offered to their customers - HELD - The Supreme Court in Union of India v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd has struck down Rule 5 as ultra vires Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, holding that Section 67 does not permit inclusion of reimbursable expenses in the value of taxable services – Further, the Section 67 which... [Read more]

2026-VIL-26-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Statutory pre-deposit requirement for appeal against ex parte assessment orders – Petitioner challenged the ex parte assessment orders issued by the department, which resulted in a total demand of around Rs. 159 crore towards tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner claimed that it could not file a reply to the show cause notices as the relevant documents were not made available to it – The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal by making a pre-deposit of 10% of the principal amount - The petitioner case that it was unable to make the pre-deposit... [Read more]

2026-VIL-289-ORI | High Court SGST

GST – Rejection of appeal on ground of Jurisdiction — Procedural Transmission of Appeals - The Order-in-Original was passed in common against the petitioner having its offices at different parts of the country. So far as it related to the State of Odisha is concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal at Bhubaneswar - The Appellate Authority summarily rejected the appeal on the ground that it was filed in the "wrong jurisdiction." - HELD - The Revenue by written instructions acknowledging that at the time of the rejection, the departmental electronic system lacked the mechanism to transmit appeals to the correct jurisdict... [Read more]

2026-VIL-514-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation from the place of removal, Cenvat credit on transporter's invoices – HELD - The definition of "Input service" as existing during the relevant time (i.e. prior to 01.04.2008) clearly indicates that the input service used by the manufacturer for clearance of final products from the place of removal was eligible for Cenvat credit - The Cenvat credit is available on the transportation of the final product from the place of removal upto the first point, whether it is depot or the customer. It was only subsequent to the amendment in the... [Read more]

2026-VIL-10-GSTAT-DEL-NAPA | Tribunal SGST

GST - Anti-Profiteering – Failure to pass on the benefit of additional Input Tax Credit to homebuyers – HELD – Respondent is directed to refund the profiteered amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the eligible homebuyers listed in the DGAP report - Interest is compensatory in nature and ensures restitution of the time value of money that rightfully belongs to the recipients, hence the respondent is liable to pay interest from the respective dates of collection of the excess amount until the date of refund - No penalty can be imposed as the provisions of Section 171(3A) came into force after the ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-499-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Claiming exemption benefit under SAFTA Notification No. 99/2011-CUS at appellate stage - The appellant had imported instant ACT II Popcorn from Bangladesh, its subsidiary company but failed to claim the benefit of SAFTA exemption Notification No. 99/2011-CUS during the initial assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's claim of the exemption benefit at the appellate stage on the grounds that the exemption benefit cannot be availed at the appellate stage and should have been availed at the time of clearance, and that the appeals are premature as the assessments were provisional and not finalized - Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the SAFTA exemption benefit at the appellate stage, even though it was not claimed during the initial self-assessment of the Bills of Entry - HELD - The exemption benefit under the SAFTA Notification can be claimed by the appellant at any stage, including the appellate stage, as long as the eligibility conditions are met. There is no estoppel in law that if the appellant had carried out self-assessment without claiming the exemption, it was debarred from claiming the benefit later. It is obligatory on the authorities to ensure that appropriate legal benefit as admissible in law is granted even if the importer fails to claim the benefit of a particular Notification - The provisional assessment of the goods does not restrict the scope of re-assessment only to the valuation aspect, the authorities are required to consider the admissibility of the exemption benefit even at the time of finalization of the assessments. The exemption benefit can be claimed at the appellate stage, even if not claimed initially – The matter is remanded to the original authority, directing them to examine the admissibility of the SAFTA exemption Notification No. 99/2011-CUS to the instant case and, if admissible, to grant the same while carrying out the exercise of finalization of the impugned Bills of Entry - The appeal is disposed of by way of remand [Read less]

2026-VIL-507-CESTAT-AHM-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Classification of petroleum products - Prior to 13.05.1999, appellants were classifying all their products under CTH 3814.00 as Industrial Solvents. Later, they changed the classification and filed a declaration classifying Rishisol S-1, S-2, S-3 under CTH 2710.13 and Rishisol B-1 under CTH 2710.90 - Department issued show cause notices proposing classification of all four products under CTH 2710.13 and demanding differential duty - Whether the products Rishisol S-1, S-2, S-3 and Rishisol B-1 are correctly classifiable under CTH 2710.13 as "Motor spirit" or should be classified under other tariff headings ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-503-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – Assignment of employees to work to foreign group companies on the on-site working basis, Export of Service - Appellants assigned their employees to work from their foreign group companies on the on-site working basis and received salary, perquisites and commission of 15% in convertible foreign exchange. The revenue department held that the services were not used outside India and the appellants were liable to pay service tax under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services – HELD - The presence or absence of a written agreement is not a material factor to decide the nature of the agree... [Read more]

2026-VIL-285-PAT | High Court VAT

Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Non-production of mandatory declaration form D-VII - The appellant's truck was intercepted at a check post while transporting a consignment of batteries. The authorities seized the truck as the driver failed to produce the mandatory "Suvidha D-VII" form as required under Section 60(2) of the Bihar VAT Act, 2005 - Whether the failure to produce the prescribed permit at the check post alone is sufficient to attract penalty under Section 60(4)(b) of the BVAT Act, even if the goods were being transported through Bihar without any intention to sell within the State – HELD - Under Section 60... [Read more]

2026-VIL-512-CESTAT-ALH-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand for service tax based on information provided by the Income Tax Department - Whether the demand for service tax under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was valid when the appellant had already declared the value of taxable services and the tax liability in the ST-3 returns – HELD - Under Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 1994, if the amount of service tax payable has been self-assessed and declared in the ST-3 return, there is no need for the issuance of a notice under Section 73(1) for recovery of the same. The appellant had already filed the ST-3 returns for the concerned period, declaring th... [Read more]

2026-VIL-516-CESTAT-CHD-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax demand based on financial records obtained from the Registrar of Companies - Whether the tax demand and penalties imposed on the appellant based solely on the financial statements, without proper identification of the taxable services, service recipients, and consideration received, are justified - HELD - The department had not made any efforts to identify the specific taxable services, service recipients, and corresponding consideration, and had instead resorted to estimation and extrapolation based on the financial statements. The high rates of growth applied to determine the tax liability, such as 490%, 250%... [Read more]

2026-VIL-515-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Eligibility of Cenvat Credit for "Renting of Immovable Property Service" (RIPS) despite change of ownership - The appellant had paid service tax under the 'Renting of Immovable Property Service' (RIPS). The appellant later sold the building thereby changing the ownership effective 18.06.2012. During the period 18.06.2012 to 30.06.2012, the appellant had collected the rent along with service tax from the tenant and paid the same to the new owner and availed Cenvat credit on the basis of the invoice raised by the new owner - Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the appellant was not eligible f... [Read more]

2026-VIL-517-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Import of goods from Bhutan, Non-inclusion of insurance and freight values – Appellant, Custom House Agent (CHA), facilitated the import of goods by an importer from Bhutan - Show Cause Notice alleging that the insurance and freight values were not added while arriving at the assessable value - Whether the appellant can be held liable for not including the insurance and freight values - Invoking of extended period of limitation to issue the Show Cause Notice – HELD - The invoices raised by the overseas party did not mention whether the value was on FOB or CIF basis. Therefore, the appellant, being the CHA, co... [Read more]

2026-VIL-505-CESTAT-KOL-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Classification of imported goods 'Gurjon Oil' and 'Patchouli Oil' under Customs Tariff - Eligibility for concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) - Differential IGST demand - Appellant imported 'Gurjon Oil' and 'Patchouli Oil' from Indonesia and claimed exemption from payment of BCD under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 as amended by Notification No. 82/2018-Cus. dated 31.12.2018. However, during audit, authorities objected to the classification and demanded differential IGST between the rate adopted by the appellant (12%) and the rate as per the Revenue (18%) - Whether the appellant is eligible for the concessional rate of BCD and whether the demand for differential IGST is legally sustainable – HELD - The classification adopted by the appellant in respect of 'Gurjon Oil' and 'Patchouli Oil' is correct, as all goods covered under Chapter Heading 3301, irrespective of the sub-heading, would be eligible for the concessional rate of BCD – The appellant has claimed the exemption under CTH 33019079 and have submitted all the documents, including the certificate of analysis, invoice, etc., showing the country of origin as “Indonesia”. The Customs had cleared the goods only after being satisfied with the classification adopted by the appellant and the documentary evidence placed by them towards the country of origin - The demand of BCD and Surcharge on Welfare Services (SWS) are set aside as the Customs authorities had cleared the goods after being satisfied with the classification and documentary evidence provided by the appellant – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowedrnIssue 2: Differential IGST demand - The appellant had paid IGST at 12% under a bonafide belief and had volunteered to pay the differential amount at 18%, with a request to allow filing of a Supplementary Bill of Entry to avail input tax credit, which was not considered by the authorities. Since the taking of IGST credit is an indefeasible right of the appellant when they use the inputs and the finished goods suffers Excise Duty / GST at the time of clearance from the appellant’s factory, the Audit/GST officials should have considered the request of the appellant - When the differential duty/tax accrues as credit to the assessee, it results in a revenue neutral situation, hence the demand is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the demand for differential IGST is set aside [Read less]

2026-VIL-506-CESTAT-AHM-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Import of waste and metallic scrap - Validity of confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalties - Appellants imported aluminum scrap from UAE through an indenter. The pre-shipment inspection certificates (PSIC) submitted for the import were found to be invalid as they were issued without proper inspection of the goods. The customs authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on the appellants and other parties involved - Whether the confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants are sustainable – HELD – The non-compliance of the conditions for import po... [Read more]

2026-VIL-502-CESTAT-CHE-CE | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - Treatment of electricity generated in co-generation plant and wheeled out to electricity grid as exempted goods under CENVAT Credit Rules - The appellant, a manufacturer of sugar, denatured ethyl alcohol and bio-compost, operated a co-generation plant within the factory premises to generate electricity using bagasse, a waste product of the sugar manufacturing process. While a portion of the generated electricity was consumed captively, the surplus was wheeled out to the electricity grid - Department considered this surplus electricity as "exempted goods" under the CENVAT Credit Rules and demanded 6% of its... [Read more]

2026-VIL-504-CESTAT-DEL-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Services provided to foreign educational institutions - Whether the services provided by the appellant to foreign educational institutions were taxable as intermediary services - HELD: The issue is no longer res integra, as in several decisions the Tribunal had held that the appellant's services when rendered to foreign universities and the earnings being in foreign exchange would not constitute intermediary services – The appellant’s services when rendered to foreign universities and the earnings being in foreign exchange would not constitute intermediary services - The demand confirmed and any penalty i... [Read more]

2026-VIL-501-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - CENVAT credit on recovery agent services - The appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid under reverse charge on services provided by 'recovery agents' and reversed 50% of the credit monthly – With the amendment to the definition of "input service" with effect from 01.04.2011, it was alleged that recovery agent services were not used for providing the appellant's output service of money lending and therefore did not qualify as input services under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 - Whether the services of recovery agents, which are part of the loan recovery mechanism, have a direct and integral nexus with the appellant's output service of money lending and are hence eligible to be availed as an 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD - The main definition, "input service" means any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service. The test is whether the output service could practically be provided without the services provided by recovery agents. Timely recovery of loans is as critical for a non-banking financial company as for a bank. Delays lead to increased borrower liability, loss of alternative income, depreciation of collateral, potential capital loss, and liquidity stress that may threaten the lender's viability. Loan recovery is thus an integral part of the lending service, whether undertaken internally or through external agencies, enforcement of security, or legal proceedings. Money lending and recovery are two sides of a same service. There cannot be one without the other. Without an effective recovery mechanism, the output service of lending cannot be practically provided. Accordingly, services rendered by external collection agencies, which is part of the loan recovery mechanism, have a direct and integral nexus with the appellant's output service and are hence eligible to be availed as an 'input service' - The appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on the services of recovery agents – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2026-VIL-68-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Uttarakhand AAR - Applicability of GST exemption on healthcare services provided by the applicant under a Government-funded public healthcare programme, Exemption to services provided by sub-contractor – Applicant is engaged in operating and managing Government-owned Urban Health & Wellness Centres (UHWCs) and Polyclinics under a government-funded public healthcare programme - The applicant delivers primary healthcare services to the public free of cost, strictly in accordance with government guidelines, without charging patients or generating any commercial revenue - Whether the operation and management of Government UHWCs/Ayushman Arogya Mandirs and Polyclinics by the applicant constitute exempt "healthcare services by a clinical establishment" under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The applicant cannot be regarded as the supplier of exempt healthcare services under Entry 74 of the said notification. The applicant is merely the operating agency engaged for operation and management of government health care centres under an agreement with Braithwaite & Co. Limited, and the services supplied by the applicant are in the nature of contractual operational, managerial and administrative services provided to Braithwaite & Co. Limited, and not the provision of healthcare services by a clinical establishment – The services supplied by the applicant are liable to GST at the applicable rates and are not eligible for exemption under either Entry 74 or Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Ordered accordingly - Whether the said activities qualify as "pure services" provided to the State Government (through its designated PSU executing agency under formal MoU) in relation to Article 243W functions (public health, hospitals, dispensaries - Twelfth Schedule Entries 6, 8, 23), and are therefore exempt under Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The services provided by the applicant as a sub-contractor cannot be interpreted as services provided to the Urban Development Directorate, Government of Uttarakhand. Consequently, the benefit of exemption under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not available to the applicant. Further, the services supplied by the applicant involve ensuring that each centre is equipped with the required infrastructure, manpower and operational support, which is in the nature of a composite supply rather than pure services. [Read less]

2026-VIL-513-CESTAT-CHD-CU | CESTAT CUSTOMS

Customs - Enhancement of value for reconditioned and used digital multi-function devices - Whether the department is justified in rejecting the declared transaction value and enhancing it based on an expert’s report without conducting a market survey or following the sequential application of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – HELD - The authorities failed to follow the mandatory sequential methodology prescribed under the Valuation Rules. Revenue primarily relied upon a chartered engineer's certificate which lacked a basis in current market surveys and failed to provide a robust comparison with identical or similar goods - In cases of second-hand capital goods, the department cannot unilaterally discard the transaction value without establishing its inaccuracy through evidence that aligns with the statutory rules. Following the ratio of the appellant’s own previous case and established judicial precedents, it is held that the rejection of the transaction value is invalid due to the absence of market-based evidence and the failure of the lower authorities to justify the specific Rule under which the value was re-determined. The revision of value is set aside for want of evidence and the declared value is accepted – The enhancement of the value is set aside and the redemption fine and penalty are reduced – The appeal is partly allowed - Confiscation and Redemption - Quantum of fine and penalty for restricted imports - Whether the authorities were correct in restricting redemption to re-export only and whether the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty imposed was excessive for the import of restricted, as opposed to prohibited, goods – HELD - There exists a fundamental distinction between "prohibited" and "restricted" goods under the Customs Act. For restricted items such as used multi-function devices, which possess certified residual utility and are not expressly prohibited for importation, the adjudicating authority is obliged to offer the owner an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation for home consumption - the consistent judicial practice for such restricted imports is to fix the redemption fine and penalty at a specific percentage of the assessable value to ensure uniformity and justice. Accordingly, the redemption fine should be limited to ten percent and the penalty to five percent of the assessable value - Redemption fine reduced to 10% and penalty reduced to 5% of the assessable value. [Read less]

2026-VIL-01-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Leviability of 5% IGST on imports of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) or Bulk drugs in terms of Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) – Whether bulk drugs/APIs are covered under the expression ‘All Drugs and Medicines’ - HELD – Bulk Drugs/APIs falls within the statutory meaning of “drug”. The bulk drugs and APIs imported by applicant, whether for manufacturing formulations, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability, or bioequivalence studies, qualify as "All Drugs" under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-IT (Rate) dated September 17, ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-290-ORI-ST | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Demand based on the information received from the Income Tax Department – Whether the demand based solely on the information received from the Income Tax Department is sustainable without independent inquiry and without granting proper opportunity to the assessee - HELD - The Adjudicating Authority has not made any independent inquiry based on the information received from the Income Tax Department. Since the adjudicating authority has failed to discharge his authority by independently inquiring as to whether the amounts treated to be consideration as per information received from the Income Tax Department ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-06-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Classification of the chemicals 'Carbosulfan' and 'Clomazone' - HELD - The product ‘Carbosulfan’ and ‘Clomazone’ are Technical Grade Chemicals. As per the technical write-up (Carbosulfan Technical and Clomazone Technical), both substances are specifically described and recognized as insecticides and herbicides - “Carbosulfan- Technical Grade and Clomazone-Technical Grade" to be used as insecticide and herbicide, are classifiable under C?H 3808, ?TSH 380891- insecticides and CTSH 380893- herbicide, more specifically under CTI 3808 91 41 and 3808 93 61 respectively, of the first schedule to the Custom... [Read more]

2026-VIL-07-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Classification of the chemicals \"Cyantraniliprole\" and \"Clothianidin\" - HELD - The products \"Cyantraniliprole\" and \"Clothianidin\" are Technical Grade Chemicals. As per the technical write-up both substances are specifically described and recognized as insecticides. The subject goods i.e. “Cyantraniliprole- Technical Grade and Clothianidin-Technical Grade” are classifiable under CTH 3808, CTSH 380891- insecticides, more specifically under CTI 3808 91 42 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Ordered accordingly

2026-VIL-286-GUJ | High Court SGST

GST - Violation of principles of natural justice, opportunity of hearing - Petitioner had challenged the adjudication order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and not being provided timely opportunity to file replies and request for personal hearing - The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner did not remain present for the personal hearing opportunity provided - Whether the Appellate Authority can reject the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner at the personal hearing – HELD - The Appellate Authority has committed an illegalit... [Read more]

2026-VIL-291-MAD-CU | High Court CUSTOMS

Customs – Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007 Customs dated 14.09.2007 - Revenue appeal challenging the Tribunal Order setting aside the order passed by the lower authorities and allowing refund of SAD – Maintainability of appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act – HELD - In a case which involves determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, such appeal can be filed only before the Supreme Court - The respondent-importer is seeking for exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty of Custo... [Read more]

2026-VIL-518-CESTAT-CHE-ST | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – 100% EOU, Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit - Appellant claimed refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on various input services used for providing output services. The refund claims were partially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority - Whether the denial of refund of Cenvat credit relating to various input services received by the appellant was correct – HELD - The definition of 'input services' during the relevant period had a wide ambit and included "activities relating to business". The lower authorities had not provided any reasoning for treating these services as ineligible input services, despite the nature of the appellant's business as a 100% export-oriented BPO/Call Centre. The dichotomous findings of the lower authorities on the non-submission of invoices are unsustainable, especially when the appellant had submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate in support of its refund claim – The appellant is eligible for refund on input services such as rent-a-cab, insurance, and architectural services – the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, to the extent it disallow the refund claim are unsustainable and set aside. The matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Original Authority only for the limited purpose of redetermining the quantum of refund to which the appellant is entitled and to sanction the same along with interest as entitled in law – The appeal is allowed - Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the formula adopted by the refund sanctioning authority was correct – HELD – There is no merits in the plea of the appellant that the refund Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-03-2006 does not deny refund of input services relating to exports done by an SEZ unit and that therefore the service exported from SEZ unit should be included in the ‘total turnover’ as well as 'export turnover’ of the formula prescribed in the Refund Notification - On the other hand, concur with the alternate plea of the Appellant, that the Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-03-2006 specifically provides that the refund of Cenvat credit is to be determined based on the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover of the registered premises from which the output services are exported. Since the appellant maintains separate accounts for its STPI and SEZ units, the total turnover and export turnover for the purpose of the formula should be confined to the STPI unit's turnover, without including the SEZ unit's turnover. [Read less]

2026-VIL-25-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Challenge to Notifications extending time limit to determine tax, interest and penalty under under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 - The High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, observing that the issues raised were pending consideration before the Supreme Court – The assessee filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order – HELD – The petitioner seeks that it may be permitted to prefer an appropriate appeal in so far as the assessment orders are concerned - In similar matters, the High Court had permitted the assessees to challenge the assessment orders by pref... [Read more]

2026-VIL-67-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Eligibility of Input Tax Credit on Leasing/Renting/Hiring of Motor Vehicles for Transportation of Women Employees - The applicant procures services of leasing/renting/hiring of motor vehicles for passenger transportation and provides the same to its women employees working in shifts - Whether the tax paid on input services in respect of leasing/renting/hiring of motor vehicles to provide transportation facility to ensure safety and security of women employees as per Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 is eligible to be availed as input tax credit – HELD - The provisions of Section 17(5)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the input tax credit in respect of such goods or services shall be available where it is obligatory for an employer to provide the same to its employees under any law for the time being in force - As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act 1947, it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to provide transport facilities to women employees working beyond 8.00 PM. Since the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 makes it obligatory for the applicant to provide transportation facilities to women employees working in shifts, the input tax credit on the leasing/renting/hiring of motor vehicles for this purpose is eligible to be availed by the applicant – The applicant is eligible to avail input tax credit on the services of leasing/renting/hiring of motor vehicles to provide transportation facility to ensure safety and security of women employees as per the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 - Whether the entire ITC be availed by the applicant for providing the transport facility in all shifts considering the safety of women as mandated under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 – HELD – The input tax credit shall be available to the applicant only on the tax paid on services of leasing, renting or hiring of motor vehicles for providing transport facilities to women employees who are arriving or leaving the workplace between 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM, as this has been made obligatory under the Notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The input tax credit cannot be availed for the transportation of male employees or women employees not working in the specified night shift - If eligible, can ITC be availed for services received from the date of introduction of proviso to Section 17(5)(b)(iii) of CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The input tax credit on leasing, renting or hiring of motor vehicles meant for transportation of women employees between 8:00 PM to 6:00 AM shall be available to the applicant from 28.05.2019 onwards, which was the date of the original Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu making it obligatory on employers to provide transportation facilities to women employees working in shifts. The provisions of Section 17(5)(b) of the CGST Act, as amended, came into effect from 01.02.2019, but the obligation was mandated on employers earlier by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The availment of such ITC shall be subject to satisfying and fulfilling the eligibility and conditions as stipulated under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, including the time limit for availing ITC prescribed under Section 16(4) of the Act. [Read less]

2026-VIL-65-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Business activities of medical association - Whether the activities of a medical association, such as conducting free health camps and organizing seminars for members, would be considered as 'business' under Section 2(17)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017, even though the ultimate objective is to provide healthcare services, which are otherwise exempt; and whether the subscription fees collected from members would be treated as 'supply' under Section 7(1)(aa) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - The activities involve the provision of facilities or benefits by an association to its members for a subscription or o... [Read more]

2026-VIL-287-CAL | High Court SGST

GST – Show Cause Notice lacking requisite particulars, opportunity of hearing – Demand of tax on the ground of excess availment of ITC – HELD - The show-cause notice was bereft of requisite particulars, depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations. The adjudication orders were in contravention of Section 75(6) of the CGST Act, as they lacked the relevant facts and basis for the conclusion. Further, the orders were passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing as required under Section 75(4) - The subsequent order the petitioner's reply and stating that no further ... [Read more]

2026-VIL-296-AP | High Court SGST

GST - Supply of solar power generating systems - Composite Supply vs. Works Contract - Assessing authority held that the services and goods supplied by the petitioner should be treated as a works contract, as the setting up of solar power generating systems would result in construction of immovable property – HELD - The very same issue had been considered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not would amount to a works contract - The supply of solar power generating systems is a composite supply and not a works contract. The turnover of the pe... [Read more]

2026-VIL-08-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Classification of new off the road mining tyre of pattern WD989/RLB989 - HELD - The subject goods, namely WD989/RLB989 tyres of the brands WORRIOR/DOUBLECOIN proposed to be imported from China, exhibit the essential attributes of Truck and Bus radial types (TBR) and merit classification under HS Code 4011 20 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which covers \"new pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on buses or lorries, Radials\" - Ordered accordingly

2026-VIL-09-AAR-CU | Advance Ruling Authority CUSTOMS

Customs AAR - Classification of product, viz. Optical Sheet-Complex – HELD - The subject goods are specifically designed for brightness enhancement in TV. The subject goods cannot be used independently or in any other apparatus except TV. The optical sheet complex is a part of television - On the basis of Note 2(b) of Section XVI, parts, suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind or in heading 8409, 8431, 8448, 8466, 8473, 8503, 8522, 8529 or 853... [Read more]

2026-VIL-295-TEL | High Court SGST

GST - Jurisdiction of the proper officer to initiate proceedings - The petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction as the Circular No.254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025 conferred jurisdiction upon the officers enumerated in Table-I for the first time to pass orders under Sections 74A, 75(2) and 122 of the CGST Act, and the earlier Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 only conferred jurisdiction over the areas defined to the proper officer in respect of the provisions of the CGST Act and IGST Act - Respondent contended that the same officer, who had issued the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025, had passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, after issuance of the Circular dated 27.10.2025, and therefore, on the date of passing of the impugned Order-in-Original, the Proper Officer had the jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act – HELD - It is not the case of the petitioner that the proper officer was not clothed with the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Under sub-section (9) thereof, the proper officer can levy penalty, upon being satisfied of the evasion of tax of an amount equal to the tax. The same Officer, who had issued the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025, had passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, after issuance of Circular dated 27.10.2025. Therefore, on the date of passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, respondent No.2 i.e. the Proper Officer had the jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the Act - The Section 160 of the CGST Act, which deals with the Assessment Proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. The petitioner did not file a reply or participate in the personal hearings and did not question the issuance of notice on lack of jurisdiction. The show cause notice dated 02.05.2025 was acted upon, leading to passing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2025, when, respondent No.2 had the jurisdiction to pass by virtue of the Circular dated 27.10.2025 - The issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is not tenable in law and rejected - The impugned proceedings do not suffer from any want of jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed [Read less]

2026-VIL-66-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Composite Supply of Healthcare Services - The applicant, a multi-specialty hospital, provides healthcare services to in-patients, which includes the supply of medicines and consumables as part of the treatment - Whether the supply of medicines and consumables to in-patients would be considered a "Composite Supply of Healthcare Service" and consequently exempt from GST – HELD - The supply of medicines and consumables used in the course of providing healthcare services to in-patients by the hospital's pharmacy unit is a composite supply, where the principal supply is the healthcare services – The... [Read more]

2026-VIL-64-AAR | Advance Ruling Authority SGST

GST – Tamil Nadu AAR - Value of Taxable Supply for export under DDP terms - The applicant, a garment manufacturer, exports goods under Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) terms, where the supplier undertakes to deliver the goods at the doorstep of the recipient and assumes responsibility to bear all costs until the goods reach their destination - Whether the transaction value for the export of goods under DDP terms should include the reimbursed expenses such as ocean freight, insurance, foreign import duties, delivery charges, and other costs incurred abroad until the goods reach their destination, and whether IGST should be paid on these expenses – HELD - As per the provisions of Section 15(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, the value of taxable supply shall be the 'transaction value' which is the price actually paid or payable for the said supply, where the supplier and the recipient are not related, and the price is the sole consideration for the supply. Further, as per Section 15(2)(c) of the Act, the 'incidental expenses, including commission and packing, charged by the supplier to the recipient of a supply and any amount charged for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply of goods or services or both at the time of, or before delivery of goods or supply of services', are liable to be included in the value of supply - In the instant case, under the DDP model, the responsibility for delivery of goods, including all costs and risks until the goods reach the buyer's designated location, is with the applicant, and the applicant absorbs all the expenses. Therefore, all such charges, including the reimbursed expenses, are liable to be included in the value of taxable supply for the purpose of payment of IGST on export of goods - All the expenses incurred by the applicant under DDP terms until the goods reach the buyer's destination, including the expenses of reimbursable nature, are liable to be included in the value of taxable supply for the purpose of payment of IGST on export of goods in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

2026-VIL-28-SC | Supreme Court SGST

GST - Violation of principles of natural justice – SCN issued demanding reversal of ITC and payment of tax - Assessee’s case that the show cause notice itself is illegal and without jurisdiction and vague - HELD - Though the Order-in-Original would indicate that the notice was served, there is no material available on record of such service of show cause notice on the assessee, this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice - Insofar as the contentions with regard to the SCN being vague and without application of mind is concerned, the said contention is devoid of merits - Reserving liberty to the appel... [Read more]

More Judgements Home More Judgements