ITAT · Delhi ● Remanded Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT, Circle 13 (1), New Delhi. 2026-juristway.com-3392-ITAT(Delhi)-IT 09 November 2026 In Jones Lang LaSalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, 2026-juristway.com-3392-ITAT(Delhi)-IT , where the TPO rejected the assessee's 19 comparables and adopted four of his own for property management, advisory and brokerage services, resulting in an adjustment of Rs. 138,08,78,127, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench declined to delete the adjustment. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the objections on filters, functional dissimilarity and margins required reasoned adjudication, but the assessee had placed no annual reports or segmental data of the disputed companies before it (paras 12–15). It distinguished remand to cure unadjudicated objections from remand to fill the Revenue's evidentiary gaps (paras 13, 16). Grounds 13 to 20 were restored to the AO/TPO for a speaking order on existing material; grounds on business service charges were withdrawn following a bilateral APA (paras 5, 16–20). HC · Gauhati ● Allowed Sri Jayanta Roy Proprietor Sonamura Foreign Liquor v The Union of India, The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (BP) -cum-Approving Authority Guwahati, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (BP) -cum-Initiating Officer Guwahati, The Initiating Officer Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Guwahati. 2026-juristway.com-3404-HC(Gauhati)-PBPT 06 November 2026 In Jayanta Roy v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3404-HC(Gauhati)-PBPT , where the Appellate Tribunal under the PBPT Act, on 05.01.2026, allowed the Revenue's review application with condonation of delay and restored appeals it had allowed on 07.12.2022 following Ganpati Dealcom, after the Supreme Court recalled that judgment on 18.10.2024, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court followed its decision in Satyajit Saha (ITA No. 01 of 2026), against which the Revenue's SLP was dismissed on 07.10.2026 (paras 4–5). Applying K.L. Rathi Steels and Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel, it held that the review could not be allowed without deciding whether Order 47 of the CPC was attracted (para 7). The Revenue's counsel conceded that the appeal was covered, and the review order was set aside (paras 6, 8–9). HC · Rajasthan ● Other M/s Shree Shyam Enterprises v Union of India, Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and State of Rajasthan, Through its Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Tax Division), Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Central Goods and Services Tax, Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division, Jaipur 2026-juristway.com-3403-HC(Rajasthan)-GST 06 November 2026 In Shree Shyam Enterprises v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3403-HC(Rajasthan)-GST , where the petitioner sought quashing of a show cause notice dated 24.07.2026 and DRC-01 dated 06.08.2026 under Section 74A proposing tax of Rs. 36,85,404, relying on the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Amritha Marketing, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the Revenue's preliminary objection that the petition was premature and involved disputed facts (paras 2–3). The petition was disposed of with liberty to raise all grounds in reply, to be decided by a speaking order, without prejudice to either side (paras 3–5). HC · Gauhati ● Allowed Bijit Hazarika v The State of Assam, The Commissioner of State Tax Assam, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) Guwahati, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Assam, The Union of India. 2026-juristway.com-3402-HC(Gauhati)-GST 06 November 2026 In Bijit Hazarika v. State of Assam, 2026-juristway.com-3402-HC(Gauhati)-GST , where a civil contractor's appeal against a Section 73 demand of Rs. 55,78,250.80 for FY 2023-24 was rejected on 08.05.2026 as delayed by about 40 days beyond the Appellate Authority's power to condone, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner's preoccupation with his daughter's treatment for Retinitis Pigmentosa at L.V. Prasad Eye Institute constituted sufficient cause (paras 5, 9–10). Finding no negligence and no prejudice to the Revenue, it set aside the rejection, directed the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits, and required the parties to appear on 27.11.2026 (paras 11–13). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Partly Allowed Anant Ram v M/s Shyam Lal Shri Narain, Proprietor 2026-juristway.com-3401-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 06 November 2026 In Anant Ram v. M/s Shyam Lal Shri Narain, 2026-juristway.com-3401-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where a Kanpur trader of taxable groceries and exempt papad faced a Section 73 demand of Rs. 97,44,759 for FY 2019-20, reduced by the First Appellate Authority to Rs. 1,78,515, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench decided two issues. On the first, it held that the deletion of the Rule 42 demand of Rs. 47,43,843.14 was non-speaking because no figures of exempt and taxable supplies, shared overheads or ledger verification were recorded, and remanded it (paras 4.2–4.6). On the second, it upheld relief on ITC of Rs. 74,325 reported by the supplier against a wrong GSTIN, as Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST was satisfied, and held the Revenue could not be aggrieved by the Rs. 59,867.50 Savorit credit already disallowed (paras 4.7–4.9). The appellate order was modified and the Rule 42 issue remanded for de novo decision. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Partly Allowed Md Qamaruddin Khan v Sri Umamaheshwara Infratech. 2026-juristway.com-3400-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Md Qamaruddin Khan v. Sri Umamaheshwara Infratech, 2026-juristway.com-3400-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where the First Appellate Authority restored a registration cancelled for non-filing of GSTR-3B for six months after the taxpayer filed returns and paid tax, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, proceeding ex parte, held that the First Appellate Authority had ignored the proviso to Rule 23(1), under which interest, late fee and penalty must also be paid (paras 9–10.2). It observed that admitted dues are recoverable under Section 79 and that the Department remained free to collect interest under Section 50 and late fee under Section 47 (paras 11–11.2). The Hon'ble Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 23 and modified the appellate order to that extent (paras 11.2–14). HC · Delhi ● Other Mohammad Kaleem v Commissioner of Customs. 2026-juristway.com-3399-HC(Delhi)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Mohammad Kaleem v. Commissioner of Customs, 2026-juristway.com-3399-HC(Delhi)-Customs , where a passenger declared 816.2 grams of gold at the Red Channel and the Commissioner (Appeals) held him an eligible passenger, allowed redemption and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,32,000, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court declined to quash the pending Section 135 complaint, observing that the relief sought was in substance a discharge (paras 4–8). The petition was disposed of with liberty to apply to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for discharge and release of the surety/FDR, to be decided expeditiously (para 9). CESTAT · New Delhi ● Dismissed Harpreet Singh, Abhishek Aggarwal, Ummed Singh Bisht, M/s Agya Import Limited v Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi 2026-juristway.com-3398-CESTAT(New Delhi)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Harpreet Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), New Delhi, 2026-juristway.com-3398-CESTAT(New Delhi)-Customs , where hop pellets and extracts imported from Germany and Belgium were declared at Rs. 84,40,716 against a re-determined value of Rs. 4,90,47,116, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi decided the appeals on the Revenue's submissions after declining a further adjournment beyond more than 18 granted (para 3). Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Illias and K.I. Pavunny, it held Section 108 statements admissible (para 6), and found the undervaluation established by recovered parallel invoices, Oriental Insurance and Bank of India documents, German Customs reports and a European Commission farm-gate price report (paras 7.4–7.8). Applying Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading, rejection of the declared value and re-determination on contemporaneous imports were upheld (paras 8–13). The duty demand under Section 28(4), confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalties under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA were confirmed and the appeals dismissed (para 14). HC · Delhi ● Allowed Dash Exports Private Limited v Directorate of Enforcement. 2026-juristway.com-3397-HC(Delhi)-IBC 06 November 2026 In Dash Exports Private Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026-juristway.com-3397-HC(Delhi)-IBC , where the ED provisionally attached the corporate debtor's land on 25.08.2021 after the NCLT had reserved orders on Asteroid Shelter Homes' Rs. 28 crore resolution plan, approved on 29.09.2021, and the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Section 32A(2) is triggered by approval of the plan and is not confined to attachments made after approval (paras 32–33). Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar and on Nitin Jain, Rajiv Chakraborty and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shiv Charan, it held that an eligible resolution applicant must receive the property on a clean slate (paras 28–36). No Special Court finding was needed where the ED alleged nothing against Asteroid (para 39). The impugned order was set aside and the FDR of Rs. 3.01 crore released within two weeks (paras 41–43). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed Bindu Kapoor, (Suspended Director) Imagine Estate Private Ltd v Mamta Binani, J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Imagine Estate Private Limited, Imagine Residence Private Ltd. and Imagine Home Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 2026-juristway.com-3396-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Bindu Kapoor v. Mamta Binani, 2026-juristway.com-3396-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the NCLT, New Delhi admitted four Mumbai-registered Imagine group companies into CIRP on J.C. Flowers' petitions treating them as guarantors of Bliss House Pvt. Ltd., already in CIRP before it, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench held that the loan agreement made all obligors, including hypothecators, jointly and severally liable and bound them to pay any shortfall from any source (paras 25–28). Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in China Development Bank, it held that substance, not nomenclature, decides whether a guarantee exists, and that a guarantee may be spread across several documents (paras 34–36). Section 60(2) therefore conferred jurisdiction on the New Delhi Bench (para 32). The companies were also directly liable on Rs. 596 crore of their own loans, whose default stood crystallised in arbitral awards not stayed (paras 30, 37–38). The appeals were dismissed (para 39). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed NKAY Investment and Sunil Madhavdas Ahuja & Ors. v Jayesh Sanghrajka & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3395-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In NKAY Investment v. Jayesh Sanghrajka, 2026-juristway.com-3395-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where minority shareholders holding about 30% of Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. challenged approval of a Rs. 1,611 crore resolution plan that extinguished their equity, alleging violation of Section 53(1)(h) and an unverified Omkara claim, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench held the appeals not maintainable. Following Ravi Shankar Vedam, Clarion Health Food, the Larger Bench in Park Energy and Prateek Jain, it held that shareholders simpliciter are not persons aggrieved by plan approval (paras 24–35). The residual amount of Rs. 90,12,66,290 payable to shareholders was held consequential on the CoC's commercial wisdom and did not confer locus (para 34). The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal reserved the Balkishan Baldawa distinction for fraud cases and dismissed the appeals (paras 33, 36). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Allowed Consortium of Admas Industries Pvt. Ltd. Subh Ashish Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Amit Jain, Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. (Successful Resolution Applicant of Sristi Hospitality Private Limited) v Rajan Deshraj Agarwal & Anr. and Rajan Deshraj Agarwal 2026-juristway.com-3394-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Consortium of Admas Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajan Deshraj Agarwal, 2026-juristway.com-3394-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the NCLT, Mumbai referred the conduct of the erstwhile RP, the SRA and Saraswat Co-operative Bank to the IBBI for delay of about a year in implementing the resolution plan of Sristi Hospitality, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench held that Clause 5.7(ii) of the approved plan made payment conditional on no pending appeal, and the plan was approved without modification (paras 30–34). The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT should have noticed the discrepancy with Clauses 10.3 and 10.15 at approval, that the appellants acted bona fide and implemented promptly once queried, and that its own interim order of 23.07.2024 only declined a stay (para 36). The adverse remarks were also made without hearing the SRA (para 38). The findings and the IBBI reference were expunged (paras 39–40). HC · Delhi ● Remanded Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3393-HC(Delhi)-PMLA 06 November 2026 In Directorate of Enforcement v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3393-HC(Delhi)-PMLA , where the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA set aside confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2024 only because FIR No. RC2172018A0004 had been quashed, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal had ignored FIR No. RC2172018A0003, in which a charge sheet and a prosecution complaint had been filed (paras 6, 10). Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupesh Arora, it held that the effect of quashing a predicate FIR on the attachment had to be independently examined (para 11). The appeal was restored to the Tribunal for fresh decision, to be listed on 18.11.2026 with connected matters (paras 12–14). HC · Allahabad ● Bail Granted Gautam Sharma v Union of India 2026-juristway.com-3382-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Gautam Sharma v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3382-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a partner of Aarti Industry was arrested by the DGGI on allegations that nine suppliers passed on fake ITC of Rs. 38 crore and remained in custody from 26.07.2026 after the complaint was filed, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court granted bail. The Hon'ble High Court relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Mehra, Vineet Jain, Ratnambar Kaushik and Manish Sisodia, noting the five-year maximum sentence, Magistrate trial, documentary evidence and absence of antecedents (paras 10–17). It also took note that the DGGI could not dispute the circular dated 30.10.2026 recommending withdrawal of arrest powers under GST (paras 4, 18). Bail was granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions (para 19). HC · Allahabad ● Remanded M/s Digital Universe v State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others 2026-juristway.com-3381-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Digital Universe v. State of U.P., 2026-juristway.com-3381-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the show cause notice dated 23.02.2023 for July 2017 to March 2018 and two reminders recorded the personal hearing date, time and venue as "N.A.", and the appeal against the order dated 01.09.2023 was rejected on delay, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the order was a classic case of violation of natural justice (para 9). It rejected the State's plea that the petitioner could have sought a hearing. Both orders were quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh order (para 10). GSTAT · Dehradun ● Dismissed Shri Guru Kripa Medical Store & Shri Mahant Indresh Hospital v Nitin Wapa, Additional Comissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax 2026-juristway.com-3380-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST 06 November 2026 In Shri Guru Kripa Medical Store v. Additional Commissioner, CGST, 2026-juristway.com-3380-GSTAT(Dehradun)-GST , where the appellant failed to file Form APL-05 and did not appear on any of five listings before the Registrar and the Bench despite a last opportunity, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun Bench held that APL-05 gives statutory recognition to an appeal and that only after defects are cured is an appeal number and APL-02 acknowledgment issued (para 2). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable (paras 3–4). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Allowed Maithan Steel and Power Limited v Satyajit Singh, Commissioner Kolkata South 2026-juristway.com-3379-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Maithan Steel and Power Limited v. Commissioner, Kolkata South, 2026-juristway.com-3379-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where transitional CENVAT credit of Rs. 14,26,661 was carried forward on the basis of manually revised ER-1 returns while the electronic ER-1 showed Rs. 4,61,533, and the First Appellate Authority upheld a Section 73 demand of Rs. 9,65,128 after deleting the capital goods demand of Rs. 3,52,678, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench decided the jurisdictional objection first (para 16). Following the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Usha Martin and the binding decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Kunjal Synergies, it held that whether CENVAT credit was admissible under the existing law lies outside Section 73 of the CGST Act and must be decided under the existing law saved by Section 174(2)(e) (paras 18–22.3). The Revenue offered only a bare assertion that Usha Martin was distinguishable (para 22.2). The appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 22.4). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Dismissed Atanu Mondal v Stores and Spares Co 2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In Atanu Mondal v. Stores and Spares Co., 2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where a registered dealer carried forward CGST credit of Rs. 36,35,704 through Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN-1 instead of Table 7(a), and the First Appellate Authority set aside the demand, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deciding three issues against it. Wrong table in TRAN-1: Following Blue Bird Pure, R.R. Distributors, Calcutta Radio Service and Adfert Technologies, a wrong-table entry is a procedural lapse that cannot defeat credit if the taxpayer is otherwise eligible; Circular No. 180/12/2022-GST does not dilute that principle (paras 5.VIII–5.XIII). New ground of ineligibility: The show cause notice and order rested solely on the wrong table; the Revenue cannot question Section 140(3) eligibility for the first time in appeal, applying principles analogous to constructive res judicata (paras 5.XIV–5.XVII). Section 107(11) inquiry: The power to make "such further inquiry as may be necessary" is discretionary, not an obligation in every appeal (para 5.XVIII). Order: The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld (para 5.XIX). GSTAT · Kolkata ● Partly Allowed A to Z Chemicals v Krishna Gopal Saha, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Lalbazar & Radhabazar Charge, WBGST & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3377-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST 06 November 2026 In A to Z Chemicals v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2026-juristway.com-3377-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST , where a Kolkata chemicals trader availed IGST credit of FY 2017-18 as CGST and SGST and was directed to reverse it with interest and penalty, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench decided two issues. On the first, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the reversal of Rs. 4,176 each under CGST and SGST for breach of Section 16(4) could not survive in view of the non obstante clause in Section 16(5) (para 13). On the second, applying the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's decisions in Kalleppuram Metals and Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex, which treat the credit ledger as a single wallet and the mis-heading as a technical error without loss of revenue, it held those rulings squarely applicable (paras 15–20). The First Appellate Authority's order was set aside and the main issue remanded for decision within three months (para 20). HC · Delhi ● Allowed Harish Goyal v Commissioner of Customs. 2026-juristway.com-3376-HC(Delhi)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Harish Goyal v. Commissioner of Customs, 2026-juristway.com-3376-HC(Delhi)-Customs , where a Ludhiana-based customs house agent was penalised Rs. 10,00,000 under Section 112(b)(i) for knowledge of Chinese firecrackers concealed behind bicycle parts and for arranging meetings with Delhi-based agents, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the penalty. The Hon'ble High Court found no evidence beyond co-noticees' statements, and noted that the Department's case that M/s Rahul Traders was the actual importer had collapsed when the CESTAT quashed Rahul Sehgal's penalty (para 13). The CESTAT wrongly assumed that cross-examination had not been sought, and refusal of cross-examination offended natural justice and Section 138B (paras 14–15). Treating the appellant differently from co-noticees whose penalties were quashed was unsustainable (para 16), and the appeal was allowed. CESTAT · Chennai ● Allowed M/s Promac Engineering Industries Limited v The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3375-CESTAT(Chennai)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Promac Engineering Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2026-juristway.com-3375-CESTAT(Chennai)-Customs , where customs brokers filed free shipping bills for exports of vertical roller mills to Sudan made under an Advance Authorisation, and the Commissioner, on remand, again rejected conversion for delay and lack of port examination, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai set aside the rejection. The Hon'ble Tribunal followed the Bangalore Bench order in the appellant's own case on the same authorisation, which had directed conversion (paras 6–8). It noted that the time limit in the circular relied on below had been held ultra vires the statute by High Courts (para 8). The appeal was allowed (para 9). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed Manoj Kumar Agarwal v IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3374-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3374-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the personal guarantee was invoked by recall notice dated 10.08.2018 and the Section 95 application was filed on 08.05.2024, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench upheld admission of the insolvency resolution process against the guarantor. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal held that Clause 5(f) of the guarantee deed made the borrower's acknowledgment in its FY 2019-20 balance sheet, signed on 12.08.2020, binding on the guarantor, and that the deed governs the guarantor's liability (paras 39–40, 43). Applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's computation in the borrower's Section 7 case, limitation ran to 28.02.2025 after excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 (paras 37, 44). Following Bernard John, Laxmi Pat Surana and Pooja Ramesh Singh, and distinguishing Channaveerappa Beleri on the deed's terms, the appeal was dismissed (paras 45–51). NCLAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Dismissed Ajay Singh Narania v Harish Kant Kaushik & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC 06 November 2026 In Ajay Singh Narania v. Harish Kant Kaushik, 2026-juristway.com-3373-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC , where the appellant challenged an NCLT, Mumbai order dated 27.03.2026 uploaded on 08.04.2026 and filed the appeal on 21.05.2026 claiming only 13 days' delay, the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench held that limitation ran from 27.03.2026, when the order was pronounced in the presence of the appellant's counsel (paras 9–11). The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal distinguished Sanjay Pandurang Kalate, which applied where no order was pronounced on the hearing date, and followed V. Nagarajan and Tata Steel v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, as the certified copy was sought only on 20.05.2026 (paras 14–19). The delay condonation application and the appeal were dismissed as beyond the 45-day limit (paras 20–21). 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. Load more
