SUPREME COURT
GST Appeal Pre-Deposit Refund Not Hit By Limitation Applicable To Other Refunds: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Number: Diary No. 56452/2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 5
The Supreme Court has clarified that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of the amount deposited for filing a GST appeal once the appeal succeeds. It has further held that such a refund cannot be denied by applying the general GST refund law or its limitation period. The court held that the refund of a mandatory pre-deposit flows from the appellate mechanism itself and not from the general refund provisions (Section 54) of the GST law.
Heavy Earth Moving Machinery Not 'Motor Vehicles' Liable For Road Tax: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. The State Of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3357 of 2017 and Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 9
The Supreme Court has recently held that Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM) and construction equipment vehicles used exclusively within private premises are not 'motor vehicles' liable to be taxed within the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act).
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “We are of the conclusive opinion that the vehicles used by the appellants are vehicles of special types, precisely construction equipment vehicles which are suitable and are meant for use for operation and use within the industrial area/factory premises/ defined enclosed premises and are not meant for use on roads or public roads. They are off-road equipments and as such stand excluded not only from the purview of the “motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Act but also from tax as Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution only authorizes taxation of vehicles suitable for use on roads only.”
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Four Accused In Fake ITC Case After Consistent Trial Appearance
Case Title: Sanjay Jain v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 8
Case Number: Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8756, 8775, 8776 and 18530 of 2025
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to four persons accused of operating a network of fake firms to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST law. The top court held that their continuous appearance before the trial court amounted to “constructive custody” and that remanding them to jail would serve no useful purpose at this stage. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing appeals filed by the accused, who were arrested in 2021 by the CGST Commissionerate, Meerut, for offences under the CGST Act.
Supreme Court Holds Tiger Global's $1.6 Billion Flipkart Stake Sale Taxable In India
Case Title: The Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax) & Ors. v. Tiger Global International II Holdings
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz SC 12
On 15 January, the Supreme Court held that capital gains arising from Tiger Global's 1.6 billion USD stake sale in Flipkart to Walmart are taxable in India. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had quashed the tax demand based on an order of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR). The top court held that on preliminary assessment, the transaction was designed to avoid the payment of income tax in India.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
CITATION : 2026LLBiz HC (ALL) 1
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 1715 of 2025
Case Title : Rajvanti Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has held that while GST law allows proceedings to be pursued against a legal heir after the death of a taxpayer, authorities cannot determine tax liability in the name of a deceased person and then recover it from the heir. The court ruled that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits recovery from legal representatives only after a valid determination against them, and not through orders passed against a dead assessee.
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 2
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 6706 of 2025
Case Title : Rc Sales And Services Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has once again made it clear that GST authorities cannot detain goods or impose penalties merely because of a wrong PIN Code in an e-way bill, if the addresses of the consignor and consignee are otherwise correct. A single-judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act are are not justified for clerical mistakes.
GST Act Does Not Require Toll Plaza Receipts To Prove Movement Of Goods: Allahabad High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (ALL) 4
Case Number : WRIT TAX No. - 3829 of 2025
Case Title : Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
The Allahabad High Court has held that the GST law does not require an assessee (taxpayer) to produce toll plaza receipts to prove the physical movement of goods and that allegations of circular trading cannot be sustained on that basis. A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal set aside tax proceedings initiated against a registered supplier of agricultural goods and areca nuts, noting that the tax department was unable to point to any provision under the GST Act or Rules that mandates production of toll receipts.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Solar Power EPC Contract Eligible for 8.9% GST, Quashes 18% Demand
Case Title: Vikram Solar Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 7
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 4420/2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently ruled that contracts for setting up solar power generating systems cannot be taxed at 18% GST merely because they involve erection and commissioning work. Holding that such contracts are covered by a concessional GST notification, the court said tax must be levied at an effective rate of 8.9% and set aside a higher assessment raised by GST authorities.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses SEIL Plea Seeking Zero-Rated GST Refund On Power Supplied To PTC
Case Title: SEIL Energy India Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 8
Case Number: W.P.Nos.21938
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by SEIL Energy India Ltd., holding that the company's supply of electricity to Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd. cannot be treated as an export under GST, even though the electricity was ultimately sold to Bangladesh. Clarifying its views in the case, the court said the transaction between SEIL and PTC remained a domestic supply and did not qualify as a zero-rated supply eligible for a full refund of input tax credit.
Case Detail: Baratam Satish, Late Kameswara Rao Baratam (Now Deceased) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 8
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that GST authorities cannot initiate assessment or adjudication proceedings in the name of a deceased proprietor, even where the tax demand relates to a period when the business was active. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar clarified that Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, a provision that allows recovery of tax payable by deceased persons, does not authorise the initiation of fresh assessment proceedings against a dead person.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds 200% VAT Penalty On Trader For Bogus Bill Trading
Case Detail: Leela Sai Ram Trading vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (APH) 9
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a penalty equal to 200% of the tax imposed on an iron and steel trader for issuing false tax invoices without actual movement of goods to facilitate wrongful availment of input tax credit. A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty of Rs 50.52 lakh levied under Section 55(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, for the period from June 2014 to June 2016.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Aerocom Cushions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 21
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2145 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Friday has set aside a GST show cause notice seeking to tax the assignment of long-term leasehold rights. The court held that such a transaction is a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and is not a taxable “supply” under the GST law. A division bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta said the tax department had wrongly treated the transaction as a service.
IGST Refund Claims Cannot Be Rejected Under Omitted Law: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 23
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 14854 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court has held that refund claims cannot be thrown out on the basis of a statutory rule that no longer exists and must be looked at afresh once such a rule is omitted (deleted) without any saving clause. The court set aside orders rejecting Integrated Goods and Services Tax refunds claimed by Kelvion India Private Limited and sent the matter back to the tax department for a fresh decision.
GST Refund Cannot Be Withheld Over Proposed Appeal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ma Agro Proprietor & Anr. v. Dy Commissioner of State Tax, Sanpada 501
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15764 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 24
The Bombay High Court has held that GST authorities cannot refuse to comply with an appellate order directing a refund merely because an appeal against the order is contemplated. Such refusal is impermissible unless the appellate order is stayed or set aside. A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by Ma Agro Proprietor alleging non-compliance with an appellate order directing refund of GST along with interest.
Case Title: Nitor Infotech Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4234 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(BOM) 22
The Bombay High Court has quashed a demand for additional stamp duty raised against an IT company. The court held that the expansion of an existing IT and IT-enabled services unit in a private IT park located within a Special Economic Zone is eligible for stamp duty exemption under Maharashtra's IT and ITES Policy, 2015. A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice R.N. Laddha allowed a writ petition filed by Nitor Infotech Pvt Ltd, setting aside an order demanding Rs 25.75 lakh as deficit stamp duty on a registered lease deed.
Calcutta HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 11
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that cash does not fall within the definition of “goods” under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law and, therefore, GST authorities have no power to seize cash unless it is directly relevant to proceedings under the Act. A bench comprising Justice Om Narayan Rai referred to Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, which expressly excludes money from the definition of “goods.”
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Rejects Bail Plea In ₹8.59 Crore GST Fraud Case
Case Title: Bahadur Islam v. The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (GAU) 1
Case Number: Bail Appln./3839/2025
The Gauhati High Court has recently denied bail to a petitioner in Rs. 8.59-crore fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) scam, observing that the allegations disclose an organized and well-planned fraud involving misuse of the GST system. A bench comprising Justice Pranjal Das noted that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation was at a crucial stage and that granting bail could hamper efforts to unearth the larger conspiracy.
Case Title: Barluit Organic Farmers Producer Company Limited Vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/6502/2025
The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that cancellation of a GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns does not permanently shut the door on restoration, so long as the taxpayer later files all pending returns and clears tax dues along with interest and late fees. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that even where registration has been cancelled for prolonged non-compliance, the proper GST officer continues to have the authority to revive it upon full compliance.
Gauhati High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation For Giving Only 7 Days To Respond
Case Title: Shobnam Ara Begom Mazumder @ Sabnamara Begum Mazumder v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (Gau) 3
Case Number: WP(C) No. 6789 of 2025
The Gauhati High Court has set aside the cancellation of a taxpayer's GST registration, holding that although a notice was issued, the GST authorities failed to grant the mandatory time required under law to respond. Justice Manish Choudhury, allowing the writ petition filed by Shobnam Ara Begom Mazumder, held that the cancellation was invalid because the taxpayer was not given the mandatory 30 days to respond and was instead allowed only seven days.
Gauhati High Court Stays GST Demand On Flats Given For Free To Landowners
Case No. WP(C)/20/2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(Gau) 4
The Gauhati High Court on 7 January stayed coercive action pursuant to a GST demand raised on flats provided free of cost to landowners under a development agreement. A Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia was hearing a writ petition filed by a developer challenging a consolidated show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), covering multiple financial years from 2017–18 to 2022–23.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: Homag India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 5
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.27378 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund claim as time-barred, holding that the limitation period must be computed from the date on which the taxpayer originally applied for the refund and not from a revised application filed after a deficiency memo. The bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar observed that, in the instant case, the refund application filed on July 4, 2024 was well within the prescribed limitation period and that a subsequent application filed pursuant to a deficiency memo could not be treated as a fresh filing for the purpose of computing limitation.
Differential GST On Pre-GST Works Contracts To Be Reimbursed By State Agencies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: N.R. Kulkarni NRK Construction Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KAR) 6
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 145682 OF 2020
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the additional GST liability arising out of the shift from the pre-GST VAT (Value Added Tax) regime to the GST regime in ongoing works contracts cannot be imposed on contractors. The bench consists of Justice M Nagaprasanna, who directed the State Departments and government agencies to reimburse the differential GST to contractors.
Kerala HC
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (KER) 7
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 7697 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court has held that assessment proceedings initiated beyond the statutory limitation period under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act), are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon noted that the pre-assessment notice under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act was issued against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the assessment year 2007–08 only on August 25, 2017. The assessment order was passed later, on January 28, 2019. This was beyond the 4-year limitation prescribed under the Act.
Madras HC
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 13
Case Number : W.P.Nos.48776
Case Title : Tvl. Baqir Brothers v. The Deputy State Tax OfficerAfter a Chennai-based trader received two separate GST assessment orders for the same financial year, the Madras High Court remanded the matter for consolidated adjudication by a single authority.
A single-judge bench of Justice C Saravanan noted that, for the same tax period, “two officers who are the Respondents in the respective Writ Petitions filed respective impugned orders,” and proceeded to consider the grievance raised by the trader.
GST Late-Fee Amnesty Benefit Cannot Be Denied To Early Annual Return Filers: Madras High Court
CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 7
Case Number : W.P.Nos.27029
Case Title : Kandan Hardware Mart v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
The Madras High Court has held that GST-registered persons who filed their annual returns before the amnesty scheme cannot be denied its benefit merely because the GST Council did not address their situation in its meeting. The amnesty scheme, notified in March 2023, capped the maximum late fee for delayed filing of GSTR-9 (annual GST returns) at Rs 10,000 per financial year for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22.
Case Title: Kanthan Associates v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 14
Case Number: WP No. 48149 of 2025
Reiterating that additional GST arising from the rollout of the GST regime in government works contracts must be borne by the procuring authority, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider a contractor's claim for reimbursement of differential tax. A Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar relying on settled law, held that contractors cannot be fastened with liability for differential GST, interest, or penalties when tax was discharged strictly in accordance with the payment certifications issued by the government authority.
Orissa HC
Orissa High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte GST Order Over Notice Sent To VAT-Era Email
Case Title: Ashis Ranjan Sahu v. The Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha and others
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 2
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.9871 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has recently set aside an ex parte GST adjudication order after finding that the tax department proceeded without ensuring that the show cause notice had actually reached the assessee, as it was sent to an email ID used during the VAT regime. A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said that once a person is treated as an unregistered taxpayer after the introduction of GST, the burden lies on the department to verify effective service of notice.
Legal Heirs Not Assessees Under Service Tax; Proceedings Abate After Death: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kanakalata Senapati v. The Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise & Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(ORI) 5
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 29819 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has recently held that legal heirs of an individual service provider cannot be treated as assessees under the service tax law and that proceedings abate upon the assessee's death even if a show cause notice was issued earlier. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman set aside a service tax demand raised against the deceased assessee, observing that the Finance Act, 1994, does not authorise the tax department to proceed against legal heirs for liabilities allegedly incurred by a deceased individual.
Punjab and Haryana HC
Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Company Director In Fraudulent ITC Availment Case
Case Title: Baldeep Singh Sapra v. State (Directorate General of GST Intelligence), Chandigarh
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (PNH) 2
Case Number: Criminal Mis. No. M-47385 of 2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a GST accused after noting the challenge that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing. The Court reiterated that failure to give written grounds violates statutory safeguards and weakens an accused's right to seek bail. Justice Surya Partap Singh granted bail to Baldeep Singh Sapra, Director of PMI Smelting Private Limited. He was arrested by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in a case alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of about Rs30.21 crore.
CESTAT
Case Title: Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise - Gandhinagar
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (GUJ) 9
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 10866 of 2020- DB
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that crop compensation charges paid to farmers for laying electricity transmission lines are not liable to service tax. A coram of Judicial Member Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha and Technical Member Satendra Vikram Singh said these payments are compensatory in nature and not consideration for any service.
Mere Stock Shortage Not Proof Of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT Allahabad
Case Title: Rana Sugar Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Meerut
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (ALL) 8
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 70653 of 2019
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Allahabad has held that a shortage of goods found during a departmental inspection cannot, by itself, justify allegations of clandestine removal. The final outcome came after a split verdict was resolved by a third member, S.S. Garg, who agreed that stock shortages alone cannot be treated as proof of illegal clearances.
CESTAT Mumbai Reiterates 10% Customs Duty Benefit On Enterprise Ethernet Switches
Case Detail: Digisol System Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs-Goa
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 86427 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 10
Reiterating that customs authorities cannot deny a concessional duty without objective evidence, the Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed Digisol Systems' appeal and extended the benefit of 10% customs duty on imported enterprise Ethernet switches and transceivers.
A bench comprising Judicial Member S.K. Mohanty and Technical Member M.M. Prathiban was hearing an appeal filed by Digisol Systems, a provider of IT networking solutions and consultancy services catering to enterprise and institutional customers.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 11
Case Detail: Yash Oro India Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import)
Case Number: Customs Appeal NO. 50911 OF 2025
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Customs authorities cannot deny duty-free benefits available to imports from Least Developed Countries merely because an import licence issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade refers to a separate concessional duty notification. A coram of President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao set aside a customs duty demand, along with interest, penalty, and redemption fine, against Yash Oro India Private Limited.
CESTAT Mumbai Allows CENVAT Credit On Kinder Joy Plastic Toys Despite Excise Exemption On Toys
Case Detail: Dream Plast India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (MUM) 12
Case Number: Excise Appeal No: 85887 OF 2016
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs and capital goods used to make plastic toys supplied with Kinder Joy chocolates. It held that such credit cannot be denied only because the toys were exempt from central excise duty.
Chilly Seeds Imported For Sowing Cannot Be Classified As 'Spices': CESTAT
Case Title: Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals)
Citations: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (DEL) 13
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50492 of 2017
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that chilly seeds imported exclusively for sowing cannot be treated as “spices” under the Customs Tariff and must instead be classified as seeds used for sowing under Chapter 12. A coram led by President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member Hemambika R. Priya set aside a 2016 order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that had upheld a higher duty on such imports.
Mid-Day Meal Scheme: CESTAT Grants Service Tax Relief To Government Catering Institute
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (PB) 15
Case Title: Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology v. Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53928 of 2014
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to a government-run catering institute that supplies Mid-Day meals to the UT education department. It reiterated that the preparation and supply of cooked food under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme does not amount to 'outdoor catering' and is therefore not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai Allows Nissan Group SEZ Unit's Claim For Refund Of Service Tax Paid
Case Title: Renault Nissan Technology And Business Centre India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & CE
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHE) 14
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 40118 of 2014
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at Chennai has ruled in favour of Renault Nissan Technology and Business Centre India, holding that service tax refund claims of Special Economic Zone units cannot be rejected only because they were filed late. A coram of Judicial Member P. Dinesha and Technical Member Vasa Seshagiri Rao said the six-month time limit in Notification No. 9/2009 Service Tax is procedural. It cannot defeat the statutory exemption under the SEZ law.
Case Title: Fortis Healthcare Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-II
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (CHA) 15
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51988 of 2015
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has recently held that Fortis Healthcare is not liable to pay service tax on infrastructure and administrative facilities provided to visiting doctors. A coram of Judicial Member S.S. Garg and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar said the arrangement was part of delivering medical treatment and not a separate taxable service.
Joint Venture MoU For Sugar Mill Modernisation Not Taxable: CESTAT Chandigarh
̌Case Title: M/s Nawanshahr Cooperative Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goods and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 60878 of 2018
The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that amounts received by a sugar mill under a co-generation and modernisation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) cannot be treated as consideration for renting of immovable property and are therefore not liable to service tax. Setting aside a service tax demand of over Rs. 21 lakh, the Bench comprising S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that in the case at hand, the arrangement between the parties was in the nature of a joint venture and did not involve any service provider–service recipient relationship.
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, GST, Medchal Commissionerate vs. Mayora India Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LLBiz CESTAT (ALL) 19
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 30178 of 2016
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, answering a reference made after conflicting rulings by its Hyderabad and Ahmedabad benches, has held that Kopiko, the coffee-flavored candy sold in India, is classifiable as sugar confectionery under the central excise tariff and not as a coffee-based preparation. As a result, the product falls under tariff heading 1704 9090, which attracts 6% excise duty, and not under heading 2101 1200, which carries a 12% duty.
GSTAT
No Profiteering Where Builder Absorbs Differential GST Burden: GSTAT
Citation: 2026 LLBiz GSTAT (DEL) 2
Case Detail: DGAP vs. Raja Housing Limited
Case No.: NAPA/165/PB/2025
The Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), New Delhi, held that anti-profiteering proceedings cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence showing that GST benefits were withheld from homebuyers, and accordingly closed two separate complaints against real estate developers—Raja Housing and Legacy Global.
Both matters were heard together by a Bench presided over by Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra. In both cases, the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) was the appellant and was represented by the same authorised counsel. The Tribunal also relied on investigations and reports of the Karnataka State Level Screening Committee in both matters, accepting its conclusions while closing the proceedings.
Authority For Advance Ruling
Delhi AAR Refuses Advance Ruling After GST Intelligence Issues Notice On Same Issues
Applicant's Name: Young Optimistic Transport Solutions Private Limited
Advance Ruling Number: 13/DAAR/2025
The Delhi Bench of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has rejected an advance ruling application filed by a transport company after holding that issues raised in the application had become sub judice following the subsequent issuance of a show cause notice by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. A coram of Bhavan Meena and Asha Chaudhary noted that the applicant did not disclose the issuance of the show cause notice during the advance ruling proceedings after it was issued, which the Authority treated as suppression of a material fact.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CCPA Fines China Gate ₹50,000 For Service Charge Automatically Levied At Bora Bora Mumbai
Case Title: China Gate Restaurant Private Limited (Bora Bora)
Case Number: CCPA- 2/26/2025-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has recently levied a penalty of Rs 50,000 on China Gate Restaurant Private Limited for automatically adding a service charge to restaurant bills and charging GST on it, calling the practice unfair to consumers. The order relates to the company's “Bora Bora” outlet in Mumbai.
New Tariff Values Set For Imported Gold And Silver
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued a notification on 13 January 2026, updating the tariff values for several imported commodities. These changes, which were made under the powers of the Customs Act, 1962, officially came into effect on 14 January 2026. According to the sources, the tariff value for gold has been set at US $1485 per 10 grams. Silver is now valued at US $2724 per kilogram.
CBIC Revises Tariff Values For Gold, Silver, Edible Oils And Brass Scrap
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has updated tariff values for edible oils, brass scrap, gold, silver and areca nuts. By a notification issued on 15 January 2026, the CBIC notified revised tariff values effective from 16 January 2026, fixing the tariff value of gold at USD 1,483 per 10 grams and silver at USD 2,950 per kilogram.
CBIC Notifies Changes To Duty Drawback Rules To Include Postal Exports
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on January 15 amended the duty drawback rules to make it easier for exporters who send goods by post to claim export benefits. The amendments, notified through the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback (Amendment) Rules, 2026, update the existing 2017 rules to formally include exports made through the postal route and treat them on par with exports covered by shipping bills/bills of export.