CESTAT · Bangalore ● Allowed The Commissioner of Customs, Mangaluru v M/s. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Commissioner of Customs, Mangaluru v. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3319-CESTAT(Bangalore)-Customs , where an importer of almonds in shell paid SAD in October and November 2016 but claimed its refund of Rs. 19,11,229 only on 01.01.2018, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore held that the claim was time-barred under paragraph 2(c) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. (paras 6, 8). The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sony India answered only whether the limit applied retrospectively to imports before 01.08.2008 (paras 7–7.2). It followed the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CMS Info Systems and the coordinate Bench rulings in Honda Siel Power Products and Ingram Micro, which hold that every condition of the exemption, including the time limit, must be met (paras 8–9). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Revenue's appeal allowed. NCLAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Sudarshan Aithal Suspended Director of Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v Bank of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3318-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC 06 November 2026 In Sudarshan Aithal v. Bank of India, 2026-juristway.com-3318-NCLAT(New Delhi)-IBC , where the suspended director did not dispute debt or default but challenged CIRP admission on the grounds of a pending OTS, the minority share (about 9.4%) of the applicant bank and the assignment of the debt to an ARC for Rs. 621 crores, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi held that the Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted the Section 7 application (paras 30–31, 39). Applying Innoventive Industries and M. Suresh Kumar Reddy, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Vidarbha Industries turned on its own facts and that admission follows once default is shown (paras 32–33). The OTS lapsed because the 10% upfront deposit of Rs. 59 crores was never paid, and the later offer of Rs. 631 crores in two instalments, recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal itself on 29.06.2026, was also not honoured (paras 34–37). Under the amended Section 12A, withdrawal now requires the prescribed procedure, and lenders cannot be compelled to accept an OTS (para 38). The appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Subhajit Leather Works v Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & Cx 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Subhajit Leather Works v. Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & CX, 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the appellant claimed refund of Rs. 9,06,045 for April 2021 to March 2022 on supplies to SEZ without payment of tax, but its GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 reported no SEZ supplies and the first appellate authority found its statements contradictory, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that the Rule 89(4) formula requires zero-rated supply to be correctly reported in the returns, and noted the appellant's gross negligence in omitting the supplies (paras 6–7). As the claim involved disputed facts and needed reconciliation, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded (paras 8–10). The appellant must file an invoice-wise reconciliation, invoices, shipping bills, Specified Officer endorsements and the LUT within four weeks, and the proper officer must pass a speaking order under Rule 92 within four weeks of the hearing (para 10). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Atanu Mondal v Jhawar Suppliers 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Atanu Mondal v. Jhawar Suppliers, 2026-juristway.com-3316-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where the taxpayer, unable to use the ACES portal, paid the service tax appeal pre-deposit of Rs. 1,10,510 for FY 2015-16 through Form GST DRC-03 on 27.05.2022, paid it again through ICEGATE on 09.04.2024, won the appeal, and claimed refund of the DRC-03 amount on 03.10.2024, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 54 did not govern the claim. Following the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Comsol Energy (Special Civil Application No. 11905 of 2020) and decisions on duty paid under mistake of law, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the amount was a pre-deposit for a service tax appeal, not tax under the GST law, so the general law of limitation applied (para 5(I)–(V)). Relying on Suvidhe Ltd. and Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX, the Hon'ble Tribunal also held unjust enrichment inapplicable (para 5(VI)). The order-in-appeal allowing the refund was upheld and the Revenue's appeal rejected (para 5(VII)). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Remanded Bengal Spare Parts Supply v M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX Howrah Commissionerate 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Bengal Spare Parts Supply v. M Rahaman, Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate, 2026-juristway.com-3315-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where an audit notice under Section 74 for FY 2017-18 to FY 2019-20 alleged tax short paid on supplies found in the profit and loss account, the appellant had paid Rs. 19,14,473 before the notice, and the first appellate authority dropped Section 74 only for FY 2017-18 because the accounts for that year alone had been uploaded, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench held that Section 74 failed for the later years too. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Steel Limited, the Hon'ble Tribunal noted that the discrepancy came only from the appellant's own documents, that the appellant was exempt from filing GSTR-9C, and that non-payment before audit is not wilful suppression (paras 8–13). The Section 74 action was quashed, FY 2017-18 was held time-barred, and the matter for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 was remanded for redetermination under Section 73 through Section 75(2), with liberty to seek the benefit of Section 128A (paras 14–15). CESTAT · Chandigarh ● Allowed M/s Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana 2026-juristway.com-3327-CESTAT(Chandigarh)-Customs 05 November 2026 In Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, 2026-juristway.com-3327-CESTAT(Chandigarh)-Customs , where spools for an aluminium foil rolling mill imported under EPCG authorisation were reclassified from Heading 8455 to Heading 7326 and the exemption denied, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh held that the exemption was available irrespective of classification. The notification adopts the definition of capital goods in para 11.08 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the spools were not in the negative list in Appendix-5F, and Customs had neither referred the matter to the DGFT nor had the authorisation modified (paras 5.1–5.2). Following JSW Steel and Jindal Stainless, it held that the exclusion of "spools" in Note 1(c) to Section XVI covers supports for material, not essential machine parts, but found it unnecessary to decide classification (para 5.3). With the exemption available, mis-declaration fell away and the demand, penalty and redemption fine were set aside (paras 5.3, 6). CESTAT · Kolkata ● Allowed M/s. Medical Research Foundation Aditya Birla Sankara Netharalaya v Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South 2026-juristway.com-3326-CESTAT(Kolkata)-CE 05 November 2026 In Medical Research Foundation v. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South, 2026-juristway.com-3326-CESTAT(Kolkata)-CE , where duty of Rs. 14,21,647 was demanded under the extended period on spectacles assembled by fitting lenses into frames, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata held that the issue is no longer res integra (para 3). Following the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Titan Company, which applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Mehta Opticians, the Hon'ble Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the appeal with consequential relief (paras 3–4). CESTAT · Chennai ● Partly Allowed M/s. Acer India (Private) Limited v Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry 2026-juristway.com-3325-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE 05 November 2026 In Acer India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry, 2026-juristway.com-3325-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE , where a computer manufacturer imported components without SAD under end-use exemptions and sent between 0.55% and 1.60% of them to its service centres for free warranty replacement, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai partly allowed the appeal, deciding five issues. Exemption (for the Revenue): Warranty replacement is not use in manufacture; the separate warranty limb in Rule 2(k)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules confirms this, and intended-use precedents do not protect deliberate diversion (paras 17–23). Limitation (for the Revenue): Following Gujarat Ambuja Exports, a recovery under Rule 8 is governed by a reasonable period, not by Section 28; the notice of 06.04.2016, issued within a year of the audit query, was in time (paras 24–29). Intent to evade (for the taxpayer): The exercise was wholly revenue neutral, as SAD was creditable and the second proviso to Rule 3(5) dispensed with reversal on warranty removals; intent was not proved (paras 30–34). Credit (for the taxpayer): TR-6 challans qualify under Rule 9(1)(b), whose exception is not attracted (paras 35–38). Interest and penalties: Interest of Rs. 36,57,166 under Rule 8 runs from importation and was upheld; penalties under Section 114A and Rule 15 were set aside (paras 40–44). Order: SAD and interest upheld (Rs. 5,61,264 already paid to be adjusted); credit allowed; both penalties of Rs. 1,15,69,622 set aside (para 46). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed Shri Bilesh Jain, Proprietor, M/s Delhi Marketing, M/s Kundan Cab Pvt. Ltd., Shri Dinesh Jain, Director, M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Shri Paras Mal Jain, Director, M/s Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., M/s Delhi Marketing v Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi East 2026-juristway.com-3324-CESTAT(New Delhi)-CE 05 November 2026 In Bilesh Jain v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi East, 2026-juristway.com-3324-CESTAT(New Delhi)-CE , where searches in February 2011 led to seizure of goods valued at over Rs. 6.25 crores and cash from three electrical goods concerns and their directors, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi allowed all appeals, deciding four issues in the appellants' favour. Delhi Marketing (manufacture): The premises had no electricity, machinery or manufacturing infrastructure, and no job worker was examined; a job worker, if any, would be the manufacturer, so the duty, confiscation and redemption fine of Rs. 1,85,00,000 fall (paras 19–20). Balar Marketing (excess stock and cash): The unrecorded goods were not shown to be finished goods requiring RG-1 entry and were later cleared on duty payment; the seized cash was explained by the cash book and a sale agreement (para 21). Kundan Cab (re-packing and MRP stickers): Duty of Rs. 3,14,497 had been paid by the supplier on MRP-based goods whose assessable value did not change, so the situation was revenue neutral (para 22). Penalties: With the main demands gone, no penalty survived on the directors or proprietor (para 23). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed M/s Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. v Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur 2026-juristway.com-3323-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST 05 November 2026 In Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, 2026-juristway.com-3323-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST , where a company providing consulting engineering services to NHAI paid tax on staff remuneration but not on reimbursed heads such as travel, rent, utilities and printing, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi rejected the plea that bodies corporate were outside the levy before 2005, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (para 9). It accepted, however, that the dispute related only to reimbursable expenses, which could not be taxed for the period before 2015 in view of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (paras 10–11). The demand of Rs. 63,07,016 confirmed in remand proceedings was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 12). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Partly Allowed Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Delhi South, New Delhi v Shanivi Constructions Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3322-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST 05 November 2026 In Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Delhi South v. Shanivi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3322-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST , where the assessee collected service tax from customers without depositing it and the Commissioner computed the Section 78 penalty after deducting Rs. 95,54,417 paid during investigation, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi decided two issues. On the first, valuation, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that where separate invoices are issued for goods and services, tax is payable only on the service value under Rule 2A(i); the burden lay on the Revenue to prove the invoices wrong, and VAT had been paid on the goods (paras 9–11). On the second, penalty, it held that collection of tax without deposit attracts Section 73(4), so Section 73(3) does not apply and there is no legal basis to deduct amounts paid during investigation (paras 13, 16–19). The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and the penalty under Section 78 was re-determined as equal to the full tax confirmed (para 20). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Allowed M/s. Madhu Agencies v Commissioner of CGST – Jaipur I 2026-juristway.com-3321-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST 05 November 2026 In Madhu Agencies v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur-I, 2026-juristway.com-3321-CESTAT(New Delhi)-ST , where a C&F agent of Birla Tyres was taxed on freight it paid to transporters and recovered on separate bills, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi held that the reimbursed freight was not part of C&F agent service (paras 13–15). The contract required the appellant only to receive, store and dispatch the tyres; Birla Tyres was both consignor and consignee and paid service tax on GTA service under reverse charge (paras 5–7, 13). Paying transporters and being reimbursed was akin to lending money to the principal, not transporting its goods (paras 14–15). The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. CESTAT · Ahmedabad ● Allowed Shri Sanjay Shah, Ramanarayan S Laddha v Commissioner of Customs-Mundra 2026-juristway.com-3320-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs 05 November 2026 In Sanjay Shah v. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, 2026-juristway.com-3320-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs , where 21,420 kg of betel nuts were found concealed behind HMS scrap in four containers imported in the name of M/s. Radhika Impex and the two appellants were penalised as masterminds, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad held that the Department had not proved abetment or mens rea (para 22). The evidence on financing and control came mainly from a separate investigation into M/s. Bhagyoday Enterprise, the proprietor of the importer was never examined, and co-noticees were not offered for cross-examination under Section 138B (paras 21–21.2). The forged bank certificate was not linked to the appellants by forensic or handwriting evidence, and was in fact seized from the customs broker's computer, which under Section 138C points to the broker (para 21.3). The Hon'ble Tribunal also found no basis for penalties higher than the Rs. 10,00,000 imposed on the importer, and set aside both penalties (paras 21.2, 22.1). HC · Madras ● Allowed Nagendran Naveenraj v The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchirappalli. 2026-juristway.com-3314-HC(Madras)-GST 05 November 2026 In Nagendran Naveenraj v. The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3314-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioner's registration was cancelled on a notice dated 24.05.2025 for not filing returns regularly, and the Government Advocate asked that the conditions in Suguna Cutpiece be imposed, the Hon'ble Madras High Court followed Suguna Cutpiece (W.P. Nos. 25048 of 2021 batch) to maintain consistency (paras 2–4). The petitioner must file pre-cancellation returns with tax, interest and late fee within 45 days, pay without using unutilised ITC, use ITC only after scrutiny and approval, and file post-cancellation returns; registration then revives (para 5). The writ petition was disposed of on those terms (paras 6–7). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Rj Namkinos v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3313-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Rj Namkinos v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3313-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a notice dated 25.12.2023 for FY 2018-19 called for a reply by 25.01.2024 but showed the hearing details as "NA", and an order under Section 73 dated 30.04.2024 followed the petitioner's reply, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rejected the Standing Counsel's plea that the petitioner could have asked for a hearing (paras 6, 8). Once the notice provides a column for hearing, the authority must fix a date, time and venue. The Section 73 order and the appellate order dated 09.09.2025 were set aside and the matter remitted to the original authority for fresh proceedings (para 9). HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Bansal Sanitary Store v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3312-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Bansal Sanitary Store v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3312-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where an appeal against a detention order under Section 129(1) dated 03.06.2023 was filed on 07.10.2023 with an application explaining illness from 01.09.2023 to 06.10.2023 by medical certificates, and the appellate authority rejected it on 26.09.2024 for want of power to condone delay beyond 120 days, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the merits should not be throttled on a technicality (paras 9–10). The appellate order did not find the certificates false, and the delay beyond 120 days was only about five days (paras 6, 9). The Hon'ble High Court set aside the appellate order, condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and directed a hearing in the first week of December and a decision by 31.12.2026 (para 11). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Kanha Mentha Traders v State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3311-HC(Allahabad)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Kanha Mentha Traders v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3311-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where ITC of Rs. 6,63,120 on purchases from a supplier whose registration was later cancelled was disallowed under Section 16(2)(c) by a Section 73 order dated 04.01.2022, passed on a notice that fixed 10.11.2021 both for reply and for hearing, and the appeal filed on 03.01.2026 was rejected for delay, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the irregularity began at the notice stage. The Standing Counsel conceded that, under Mahaveer Trading Company (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024), the reply date must precede the hearing date (paras 6, 8–9). With the parties' consent, both orders were set aside and the matter remitted; the petitioner must reply by 18.11.2026, and a hearing is to be fixed in the second week of December 2026 (para 11). The benefit is conditional on deposit of Rs. 5,000 as costs by 13.11.2026, and the order, being by consent, is not a precedent (paras 11(e), 13). GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Josco Gold Corporation Private Ltd v The Commissioner of Kerala SGST Thiruvananthapuram 2026-juristway.com-3310-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 05 November 2026 In Josco Gold Corporation Private Ltd v. The Commissioner of Kerala SGST, 2026-juristway.com-3310-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the Revenue treated sales returns of Rs. 70,29,725 in July 2017 to March 2018 as escaped turnover because Table 5H of GSTR-9 showed no credit notes, and confirmed tax of Rs. 2,10,892, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench set aside both lower orders without reaching the merits. On the first issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the order-in-original itself recorded that credit notes existed, which destroyed the notice's foundation, and that its findings on same-day credit notes and excess values under Section 34 were never put to the appellant; with no hearing recorded, the order breached Sections 75(4) and 75(7) (paras 6.3, 6.4(d)–(m)). On the second, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the first appellate authority compounded the error by adding four new grounds, and that Section 107(11) does not permit findings reached without notice to the appellant (para 6.4(c), (n)–(s)). The plea that a full hearing before the Tribunal cures the earlier denial was rejected (para 6.4(u)). The appeal was allowed with consequential relief (para 7). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed M/s Sri Ram Traders v Prakhar Pratap Singh, State Tax Officer, Barabanki & Ors. Quorum 2026-juristway.com-3309-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s Sri Ram Traders v. Prakhar Pratap Singh, State Tax Officer, Barabanki, 2026-juristway.com-3309-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant reversed excess ITC of Rs. 2,30,206 for FY 2020-21 through DRC-03 dated 21.10.2024 before the show cause notice, and the first appellate authority deleted the tax demand of Rs. 11,86,360 but sustained interest of Rs. 1,65,748 and penalty of Rs. 23,620, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench allowed the appeal on both issues. On the first issue, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that Section 50(3) requires utilisation as well as availment, and that Rule 88B(3) and Circular No. 192/04/2023-GST test utilisation by whether the ledger balance falls below the disputed credit (paras 5.2–5.4). A verification report of the State Tax Officer, acknowledged by the departmental representative, showed that the balance always exceeded the disputed amount, so no interest was leviable (paras 5.6–5.8). On the second, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that no independent basis for the residual penalty had been shown once the tax demand was set aside and utilisation was not established (paras 5.10–5.12). The remaining interest and penalty were quashed. GSTAT · Ranchi ● Dismissed Anil Kumar Jha v M/s Tata Steel Limited 2026-juristway.com-3308-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST 05 November 2026 In Anil Kumar Jha v. M/s Tata Steel Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3308-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST , where the first appellate authority dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a Section 74(3) order dated 02.12.2024 for a delay of six days without a condonation application, and the Revenue nonetheless appealed under Section 112(3) on the ground that the pre-deposit under Section 107(6) had not been made, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench found no infirmity. Para 5 of the first appellate order recorded a challan dated 12.03.2025 for Rs. 41,72,618 as proof of pre-deposit. As the first appeal was dismissed on limitation, the original order remained operative and enforceable, and the Revenue's appeal was uncalled for. The appeal was dismissed. GSTAT · Ranchi ● Dismissed Anil Kumar Jha v AK Traders & Co 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST 05 November 2026 In Anil Kumar Jha v. AK Traders & Co., 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST , where the taxpayer paid the entire tax and part of the interest by DRC-03 dated 11.10.2023, before the DRC-01 dated 03.11.2023 and in response to a recovery letter under Section 79, and the first appellate authority waived penalty, the Revenue appealed under the exclusion clause of Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST, contending that partial payment of interest cannot satisfy Section 73(8) and that penalty under Section 73(9) must follow. The Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench found that the disputed interest was only Rs. 10,321 and that the Department itself reported its payment by DRC-03. Finding no infirmity in the first appellate order, the Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of the appeal on the monetary limit and kept the question of law open for a more appropriate case. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Dismissed R.S. Traders v Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Department 2026-juristway.com-3306-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 05 November 2026 In R.S. Traders v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Department, 2026-juristway.com-3306-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the appellant reversed excess ITC of Rs. 3,51,049.36 for FY 2021-22 through DRC-03 dated 27.10.2025 after scrutiny, but contended that sufficient balance had always remained in its electronic credit ledger, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench held that the plea was factually false. The ledger had fallen to nil on several occasions before 27.10.2025, so the excess ITC was consumed in discharging output tax (para 6.2(b)). Interest under Section 50 is compensatory and mens rea is irrelevant, so Raj Iron & Building Materials and Imtiyaz Ahmad did not apply (para 6.2(c)). As the appellant did not appear on four dates, the appeal was decided on record, rejected, and the order-in-appeal upholding interest of Rs. 2,48,600.64 confirmed (paras 6.1, 6.3). GSTAT · Pune ● Dismissed M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v The Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra. 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST 05 November 2026 In M/s. Reliant Buildup, Sangli v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3296-GSTAT(Pune)-GST , where a Sangli contractor charged 12% on works contracts executed in 2018-19 for four co-operative spinning mills sanctioned and funded under a Government of Maharashtra scheme, and an audit-based order under Section 73(9) dated 15.01.2024, as modified on 13.10.2025 by the first appellate authority (which dropped the Section 16(4) demand and the Section 122 penalty), left tax of Rs. 69,62,492 (Rs. 65,43,016 as the 18%–12% differential and Rs. 4,19,476 as credit not reflected in GSTR-2A), interest of Rs. 65,05,878 and penalty of Rs. 6,96,250, the Tribunal, taking the additional grounds and over a thousand pages of annexures on record (para 38), held that the recipients of the supplies were the societies, which invited the tenders, signed the agreements as owners and were billed, the Textile Department and the State-level Monitoring Committee having only sanctioned and supervised the projects (paras 41–49); that the societies were neither set up by statute nor shown to be established by Government, Shapoorji Pallonji not dispensing with that requirement (paras 50–56); that, independently, a factory for spinning yarn for sale is meant for industry and commerce (paras 58–62); that departmental minutes settling a GST component of the price cannot alter a rate notified under Section 9(1), and no estoppel lies against the statute (paras 42–44 and 69); that interest under Section 50(1) is compensatory and the Section 73(9) penalty is fixed by statute (paras 65–71); that the invoices were tax-exclusive, so no cum-tax recomputation arose (paras 72–73); and that the credit failed for want of the supplier certificates contemplated by Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, a remand being declined (paras 74–83); the appeal was dismissed, the demand of Rs. 1,41,64,620 upheld and the amounts paid at the first-appeal stage directed to be adjusted (para 84). CESTAT · Allahabad ● Dismissed Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Lucknow, v Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Dharmendra Kumar @ Pappu Soni 2026-juristway.com-3336-CESTAT(Allahabad)-Customs 04 November 2026 In Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow v. Balbir Singh, 2026-juristway.com-3336-CESTAT(Allahabad)-Customs , where seven defaced gold pieces were seized from a jeweller's employee at Varanasi and both the carrier and the jeweller were penalised on statements admitting smuggling from Bangladesh, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' order setting aside confiscation and penalties. No objective material existed at the time of seizure to found reasonable belief, so Section 123 could not be invoked (paras 6–6.13). The confessions were general, did not explain how the gold crossed the border, were retracted, and were not tested under Section 138B (paras 7–7.2). The jeweller's invoices from a Kolkata supplier, bank payment and refinery voucher established licit purchase, and differences in invoice layout did not affect any material particular (paras 8–8.4). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed (para 10). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Partly Allowed Sushil Gautam v Principal Commissioner of Customs ICD-Import, Tughlakabad, New Delhi 2026-juristway.com-3335-CESTAT(New Delhi)-Customs 04 November 2026 In Sushil Gautam v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD-Import, Tughlakabad, 2026-juristway.com-3335-CESTAT(New Delhi)-Customs , where a salaried G-card holder filed six bills of entry for an importer created on forged documents, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi held that setting aside the broker's licence revocation did not exonerate him. He filed using his own ID and dongle, kept the F-card holder uninformed despite a customs alert, and admitted not tallying the PAN and Aadhaar with originals (para 7). Considering his monthly salary of Rs. 18,000, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,000 (paras 8–9). Load more
