GSTAT · Cuttack ● Dismissed Ram Niwas Agarwal v Dhirendra Kumar Parida, Addl. Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) 2026-juristway.com-3444-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST 13 November 2026 In Ram Niwas Agarwal v. Dhirendra Kumar Parida, 2026-juristway.com-3444-GSTAT(Cuttack)-GST , where a steel manufacturer availed ITC of Rs. 1,07,712 in September 2020 on two invoices of M/s Lakra Steel, whose named proprietor disowned the business and whose rent agreement was signed in the names of persons long dead, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench held that no supply can exist without an existing supplier, so the invoices were mere paper transactions (paras 10, 13). Invoices, e-way bills, weighment slips and payment by bearer cheques did not prove receipt of goods; the stock register and affidavit filed for the first time could not be admitted without a formal application for additional evidence (paras 11, 15). On Quest Merchandising and Gargo Traders were distinguished because the supplier's genuineness was not in doubt there (paras 16–18). The Hon'ble Tribunal held Section 74 rightly invoked and found no breach of natural justice; the appeal was dismissed (paras 19–21). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Harinder Pal Singh v Prasanna Enterprises 2026-juristway.com-3443-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 12 November 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. Prasanna Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3443-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where refund of Rs. 7,98,271 for July 2022 was challenged because the shipping bill (12.08.2022) and EGM (20.08.2022) fell in August, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench applied Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia and held that the time of supply of export goods is the issue of invoice on removal, so the July invoice was rightly included in zero-rated turnover, export being undisputed (paras 9–12). The cause title was corrected under Rule 33(2) to name the Commissioner, and the Department's appeal was rejected (paras 2, 13). GSTAT · Chandigarh ● Dismissed Harinder Pal Singh v Prasanna Enterprises 2026-juristway.com-3442-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST 12 November 2026 In Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. Prasanna Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3442-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST , where the Department sought to exclude a shipping bill dated 20.01.2022 of FOB value Rs. 46,78,200 from zero-rated turnover because the EGM date was 25.04.2022, alleging excess refund of Rs. 1,62,924, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench followed its decision in Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (paras 11–13). Under Sections 12 and 31, the supply of export goods takes place on removal and issue of the invoice; turnover of zero-rated supply is therefore computed from invoices issued in the relevant period, subject to proof of actual export (para 13). The invoice and the shipping bill both fell within the relevant period and export was undisputed, so the Department's contention was "incongruous" (paras 14–15). The cause title was corrected under Rule 33(2) to name the Commissioner as appellant, and the appeal was rejected (paras 2, 16). GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Dismissed Raj Trading Co. v JP Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj 2026-juristway.com-3441-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 12 November 2026 In Raj Trading Co. v. J.P. Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Prayagraj, 2026-juristway.com-3441-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where an iron and steel trader's godown was surveyed on 23.03.2018 and three bound "Natraj" notebooks (Sanket-02) recorded unreported sales of Rs. 2,52,01,836, and on remand from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court the First Appellate Authority confirmed tax of Rs. 45,36,330 on those entries alone, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Prayagraj Bench dismissed the appeal, deciding four issues. Evidentiary value of Sanket-02: V.C. Shukla and Common Cause concern third-party records; notebooks found in the trader's premises with his other accepted records, in his trade's language and explained by the proprietor's unretracted Panchnama admission, are admissions; Rule 56(10) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act cast the onus on him (paras 6–8, 13). Corroboration: Clandestine-manufacture decisions requiring excess inputs or power are rules on sufficiency of proof for manufacturers; an unrecorded sale needs no matching unrecorded purchase, and the absence of a stock register explains the absence of a stock discrepancy (paras 9–12). Section 74: Destroying counterpart sale pads and keeping no stock register showed deliberate suppression (para 14). No worse position on remand: Following Saudi Arabian Airlines (2026 INSC 933), tax and penalty were capped at Rs. 45,00,000 each, and interest up to 10.09.2024 at Rs. 56,70,000 (paras 15, 18). Order: Appeal dismissed on merits, with the demand so modified (paras 19–20). CESTAT · Ahmedabad ● Allowed M/s. Rumi Petro Chem (I) Private Limited v Commissioner of Customs-Kandla 2026-juristway.com-3440-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs 12 November 2026 In Rumi Petro Chem (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, 2026-juristway.com-3440-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs , where 2,491.475 MT of Distillate Marine Oil declared under CTI 2710 19 61 was seized because CRCL found it "most akin" to restricted HFHSD despite a flash point of 52°C, and was provisionally released subject to a 100% bond, a 10% bank guarantee of Rs. 1,01,38,000 and end-use conditions, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench followed its decision in Quantum Petro Chem India (paras 5–6). That decision applied the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Aparajita Energy and Noya Infrastructure and the Hon'ble Tribunal in Prajakt Agro, holding a bank guarantee unjustified for this class of goods. The appeal was allowed, and discharge of the bank guarantee directed to be considered on production of an end-use certificate and execution of a bond (paras 6–7). CESTAT · Ahmedabad ● Partly Allowed SDB Diamond Bourse v Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – CGST & Central Excise Surat 2026-juristway.com-3439-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-ST 12 November 2026 In SDB Diamond Bourse v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat, 2026-juristway.com-3439-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-ST , where a Section 8 company collected refundable deposits at Rs. 600 per sq. ft. from diamond traders for office space in a proposed bourse, obtained the land only by lease deed dated 13.04.2017, and had paid Rs. 26.96 crore under protest before the notice, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench considered only interest and penalty, the tax having been accepted (para 5). Applying K.R. Suresh, Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills and Videocon Properties, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that, construction being uncertain without land, the amounts were refundable earnest money and not advances; Rule 5 of the Point of Taxation Rules applied from 13.04.2017, when the board resolution converted them into advances (paras 5.4–5.6). Tax was therefore paid in time, no interest was recoverable, and the deposits shown as liabilities in audited accounts negated suppression, so the Section 78 penalty fell; the Section 77(1) penalty was upheld for the ST-3 return filed 42 days late (para 5.6). Relief to directors penalised under Section 78A was declined because they had not filed separate appeals (para 5.8). HC · Madras ● Other M Kathirvel v The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) /state Tax Officer, Circle-Ill, Karur 2026-juristway.com-3438-HC(Madras)-GST 12 November 2026 In M. Kathirvel v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2026-juristway.com-3438-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioner's electronic credit ledger was blocked on 08.09.2026 on the ground that the supplier was non-functioning and ITC was availed from a non-existent unit, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that these reasons were prima facie within Rule 86A (para 3). Since Rule 86A(2) permits unblocking when the conditions no longer exist, the petitioner was left to apply, and respondents 1 and 2 were directed to decide any such application within 30 days of receipt (paras 3–4). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Remanded M/s Gajanan Nagesh Pai v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-3437-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 12 November 2026 In Gajanan Nagesh Pai v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3437-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a civil contractor's excess of Rs. 10,72,000 of GSTR-3B credit over GSTR-2A for 2021-22 was confirmed with interest and penalty, and his first appeal was dismissed because he did not appear on three hearing dates, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench remanded the matter, deciding three issues. Dismissal without merits: Absence closes the chance to be heard, not the appeal; Section 107(11) and (12) required a reasoned decision, and Laxmi Telecom left merits to the appellate forum (paras 25–31). Bare GSTR-2A difference: For April to December 2021 the binding Circulars required invoice-wise verification; from 01.01.2022 Section 16(2)(aa) and substituted Rule 36(4) apply, so a single annual comparison cannot apply the different tests. Both sides fell short: the officer did not verify and the taxpayer did not produce (paras 33–47). Interest and penalty: Interest under Section 50(3) requires findings that credit was wrongly availed and utilised, computed under Rule 88B(3) on the combined ledger balance; the penalty follows the tax (paras 48–53). Order: Matter restored to the proper officer, not the appellate authority, because only the officer can verify supplier data; reply within eight weeks, failing which decision on record after one notice (paras 55–61). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Remanded M/s G.R. Enterprises v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka 2026-juristway.com-3436-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 12 November 2026 In G.R. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3436-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a scrap trader's registration was cancelled under Rule 21(a) retrospectively from February 2019 after a site visit, its revocation application was rejected, and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 108566 of 2025 permitted a fresh appeal on merits, but the appellate authority rejected that appeal at admission for "mis-representation of facts", the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench decided four issues. High Court direction: Section 107 does not permit rejection for want of merit at the admission stage; the appellate authority was bound to obey the High Court's direction and could not rely on its own order that had been set aside (paras 29–34). Misrepresentation: Whether the Hon'ble High Court was misled is for that Court alone; inaccuracies in the appellant's pleadings may affect credibility but are not a ground to refuse a decision (paras 35–37). Revocation and appeal: Sections 30 and 107 serve different purposes, and seeking revocation is not an admission (paras 39–40). Remand: The Hon'ble Tribunal declined to decide the merits itself, because doing so would replace the High Court's direction and the record was incomplete, and listed questions on notice, retrospective date, service, hearing and Rule 25 verification (paras 42–49). Order: Remanded to the appellate authority with directions on disclosure, filings and a reasoned order within three months; restoration of registration not granted at this stage (para 51). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Optiv Trading India Private Limited v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bengaluru 2026-juristway.com-3435-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 12 November 2026 In Optiv Trading India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, 2026-juristway.com-3435-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where an audit demanded reversal of IGST ITC of Rs. 61,85,093 for FY 2018-19 by comparing aggregate GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A figures, and the first appeal was dismissed for non-appearance on three hearing dates, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench allowed the appeal, deciding three issues. Dismissal for non-prosecution: Section 107(11) and (12) require a reasoned decision on the points arising from the written grounds; the authority could proceed ex parte but could not dismiss for default without examining the DRC-06 reply, reconciliation and B2BA data (paras 5.5–5.19). GSTR-2A mismatch: For FY 2018-19 reflection in GSTR-2A was not a condition for ITC; a mismatch may trigger verification but, without invoice-level identification and the Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST procedure, cannot sustain a demand (paras 6.11–6.22). Reconciliation on merits: Nine invoices of one supplier carrying IGST of Rs. 81,08,000 appeared in the July 2019 B2BA table, which the adjudicating authority ignored; the Revenue's representative verified that there was no excess availment (paras 7.5–7.9). Order: Demand, interest and penalty of Rs. 6,18,509 set aside; the alternative plea for interest waiver did not arise (paras 8.1, 9.1). GSTAT · Bengaluru ● Allowed Cauvery Constructions v The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2026-juristway.com-3434-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST 11 November 2026 In Cauvery Constructions v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2026-juristway.com-3434-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST , where a cold milling machine sent from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka for job work under an e-way bill and Rule 55 delivery challan was detained because Part B showed a different vehicle number, and penalty of Rs. 10,28,380 was imposed under Section 129(1)(a), the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench held that the penalty was unwarranted (para 16). Applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyam Shivam Papers and the jurisdictional Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in BVM Trans Solutions, the Hon'ble Tribunal rejected the view that mens rea is irrelevant to Section 129 and declined to follow Gati Kintetsu and Manish Packaging (paras 9–14). Correct conveyance details are not an empty formality, but the discrepancy alone could not establish intent where physical verification revealed no defect and the transporter's error was unrebutted (paras 15–16). The appeal was allowed, with effect to be given within eight weeks. HC · Madras ● Dismissed S. Santhosh Kumar S/o. Latha S. v The Union of India, The Director General of Foreign Trade, The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3433-HC(Madras)-Customs 11 November 2026 In S. Santhosh Kumar v. Union of India, 2026-juristway.com-3433-HC(Madras)-Customs , where a Chennai resident sought, by public interest petition, enforcement of value caps and actual user conditions introduced for DFIA imports by Public Notice No. 41 dated 02.11.2016, a declaration that CESTAT rulings do not bind the DGFT, and recognition of the DGFT's sole authority over RoDTEP eligibility, the Hon'ble Madras High Court dismissed the petition. The petition rested on internet reports, named no importer, bill of entry or loss, and was preceded by no representation (para 5). Mandamus cannot enforce a condition whose legal force is in serious doubt; issuing a proper notification is for the executive (para 6). The CESTAT orders were judicial orders the Revenue could have appealed, and a stranger cannot challenge them when the Union does not; paragraph 2.58 of the FTP cannot take away jurisdiction conferred by Parliament (paras 8–9). GSTAT · Vijayawada ● Allowed M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited v Commissioner of State Tax Andhra Pradesh, O/O The Chief Commissioner of State Tax Andhra Pradesh. 2026-juristway.com-3432-GSTAT(Vijayawada)-GST 11 November 2026 In Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, 2026-juristway.com-3432-GSTAT(Vijayawada)-GST , where eight inverted duty refund claims filed between 18.01.2023 and 29.03.2023 were rejected, allowed by the First Appellate Authority on 23.09.2023 and paid in November 2023 on consequential applications, with interest refused because payment was within sixty days of those applications, the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Vijayawada Bench held that interest under the main provision of Section 56 runs from the original applications. The consequential application is only a procedural step to implement the appellate order; the Explanation to Rule 93 and Circular No. 111/30/2019-GST show that the original claim survives during appeal (Part V, Part VII paras 2–12). Following Lupin, Altisource, Qualcomm, SBI Cards and Bansal International, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the 9% proviso operates in a separate field and does not displace accrued 6% interest; Willowood Chemicals decided only the rate, not the starting point (Part VI). The appeals were allowed, with interest to be computed claim-wise and paid within eight weeks, subject to verification of completeness of the original applications (Part IX). GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Partly Allowed Valuelabs Services Private Limited v Dasari Balaih, Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3431-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 11 November 2026 In Valuelabs Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dasari Balaih, Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, 2026-juristway.com-3431-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where a Section 74 notice reversed ITC of Rs. 41,10,666 for July 2017 to March 2018 as excess over GSTR-2A, alleging only breach of Section 16(2)(c), the Hon'ble GST Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench partly allowed the appeal, deciding three issues. Amended B2B entry and certificates (for the taxpayer): The Revenue could not support the demand on grounds outside the notice (paras 19–19.2). Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST binds the Revenue in pending appeals; an amended B2B entry of Rs. 25,44,774 and certificates in the prescribed form, with vendor ledgers, discharged the Section 155 burden, and their rejection without reasons was non-speaking (paras 20–28.1). Residual IGST of Rs. 20,430 (for the Revenue): Having invoked the Circular, the taxpayer could not disclaim its mode of proof for invoices without certificates; credit of Rs. 20,430 was inadmissible (paras 29–30.2). Section 74 (for the taxpayer): The notice recorded only that the taxpayer "appears" to have suppressed facts; the credit was disclosed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, so Section 74 failed and the notice was deemed to be under Section 73 (paras 31–35.2). Order: Demand sustained only for IGST Rs. 20,430 with interest (if utilised) and penalty to be quantified within four weeks; balance set aside (paras 36–40). CESTAT · Chennai ● Allowed M/s. Shriram Automall India Ltd. v Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3430-CESTAT(Chennai)-ST 11 November 2026 In Shriram Automall India Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai, 2026-juristway.com-3430-CESTAT(Chennai)-ST , where an audit-based notice dated 23.01.2015 demanded reversal of credit attributable to trading, denied credit on certain input services and recovered credit treated as capital-goods credit, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench allowed the appeal, deciding three issues. Limitation: The returns were due between 25.10.2010 and 25.04.2012, so the notice was beyond one year. The transactions were in the assessee's records, Rs. 11,66,784 had been paid with interest in January 2013 and the dispute was interpretational; the extended period was not invocable and the entire demand was time-barred (paras 7–9). Returns filed on 09.06.2015 could not extend limitation retrospectively (para 8). Trading under Rule 6 (alternative finding): The Department had not shown that the Rs. 17,43,459 demand was quantified under the formula applicable from 01.04.2011, after giving effect to reversals and the Rule 6(5) claim (paras 11–13). Input services and capital goods (alternative findings): Property valuation, company secretarial and Automall launch publicity services had business nexus; denial of group critical-illness insurance (Rs. 12,482) was not disturbed on merits. Capitalisation of Rs. 23,68,320 of service expenditure did not make it capital goods (paras 17–23). Order: Interest and penalty fell with the demand; amounts already paid or reversed to receive consequential treatment without double recovery (paras 24–27). CESTAT · Chennai ● Dismissed Principle Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore v M/s. Lux Industries Limited 2026-juristway.com-3429-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE 11 November 2026 In Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Lux Industries Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3429-CESTAT(Chennai)-CE , where the Revenue sought to deny credit of Rs. 1,58,15,615 on service tax charged by channels to the advertising agency Prachar and passed on to the manufacturer, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench held that the appeal failed on its own record. The Committee of Commissioners had accepted the Order-in-Appeal on merits and authorised the appeal only to keep the issue alive pending the Department's appeal in Zapak Digital, which the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had since dismissed (paras 8–10). The Hon'ble Tribunal added that Indian Oil Corporation was never challenged and that the Hon'ble Madras High Court had declined to interfere in Power Soap on identical questions (paras 11–12). On merits, the advertiser received and used the service; the Revenue's acceptance of credit on the agency's commission was inconsistent with its stand, and Rule 9(2) covered any documentary deficiency (paras 14–17). The appeal was dismissed. HC · Kerala ● Dismissed A.M. Gopalan, Managing Director Sree Gokulam Chit and Fiance Co. (P) Ltd., v State of Kerala, Aboobacker. 2026-juristway.com-3428-HC(Kerala)-INDLAW 11 November 2026 In A.M. Gopalan v. State of Kerala, 2026-juristway.com-3428-HC(Kerala)-INDLAW , where a chit company alleged that a subscriber issued a cheque dated 01.08.2006 for Rs. 1,83,611 towards chitty arrears although the chitty was auctioned only on 01.09.2006, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that a cheque issued for a debt arising a month later was an absolute improbability (para 13). The complainant's witness could not state the instalments paid or the date of default, and neither the chit agreement nor the statement of account was produced; this omission was fatal (paras 12–13). Tendering the dishonoured cheque alone does not discharge the initial burden, which includes proof of the underlying transaction (para 13). The acquittal was confirmed and the appeal dismissed (para 14). HC · Orissa ● Dismissed Competition Commission of India, New Delhi & Another v M/s Rungta Mines Limited, Kolkata & Others. 2026-juristway.com-3445-HC(Orissa)-COMP 10 November 2026 In Competition Commission of India v. Rungta Mines Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3445-HC(Orissa)-COMP , where the CCI registered a suo motu steel cartel case by minutes dated 23.08.2021 "in terms of" a Madras High Court order directing action on a complaint, and the DG treated Rungta Mines, not named in the complaint, as an opposite party, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court dismissed the CCI's appeal, deciding six issues. Maintainability, delay and territory: A challenge to the jurisdictional foundation of an investigation is maintainable under Article 226, since Section 53B gives no appeal against a Section 26(1) direction; the petition, filed soon after inspection of records in August 2025, was not delayed, and three of four units in Odisha gave territorial nexus (paras 7–16). Madras High Court order: A direction to act "in accordance with law" could not substitute the CCI's statutory satisfaction (paras 18–20). Minutes of 23.08.2021: Applying Steel Authority of India, the minutes recorded no prima facie opinion and did not satisfy Section 26(1); the Hon'ble High Court respectfully differed from the Calcutta High Court Division Bench in Shyam Steel (paras 30–35). Scope of investigation: The DG may investigate unnamed enterprises with a demonstrable nexus, but only within a valid inquiry (paras 39–46). Procedure: Rungta Mines was arrayed without any Commission order or Regulation 24 procedure, unlike associations added by order dated 01.07.2025 (paras 47–50). Order: Quashing confirmed for Rungta Mines and its Director only, without any finding on merits against others (paras 51–54). 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 · Allahabad ● Other M/s Star Metal Industries v Additional Commissione Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise and Another 2026-juristway.com-3453-HC(Allahabad)-GST 06 November 2026 In Star Metal Industries v. Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, 2026-juristway.com-3453-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where a Section 74 order dated 22.06.2026 for FY 2018-19 to 2023-24 was challenged as barred by Section 6(2)(b) because 7 of 27 transactions were also covered by State proceedings, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court found no jurisdictional error as to the remaining 20 transactions (paras 4–7). The Hon'ble High Court declined to permit the dispute arising from one adjudication order to be bifurcated between the writ court and the appeal forum (para 7). The petition was disposed of, directing that an appeal filed within three weeks be entertained on merits without objection as to limitation (para 8). SC ● Dismissed The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v Daiwa Portfolio Advisory (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2026-juristway.com-3452-SC-IT 06 November 2026 In Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Daiwa Portfolio Advisory (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3452-SC-IT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General for the Revenue and Senior Counsel for the assessee, found no good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the Revenue's special leave petition (paras 1–2). As the dismissal is by a non-speaking order, it does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141. CESTAT · Ahmedabad ● Partly Allowed Alpha Impex, Shri Paramvir Singh, OWS Warehouse Services LLP, Shri Sabu George, M/s Lara Eximp Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs - Mundra 2026-juristway.com-3451-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs 06 November 2026 In Alpha Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, 2026-juristway.com-3451-CESTAT(Ahmedabad)-Customs , where a live SEZ-warehoused consignment declared as "Iron Door Plates" (CTH 8302 49 00) was found by a Chartered Engineer to be CTCP digital offset printing plates attracting anti-dumping duty, and the duty was extended to eight earlier consignments sold to N.R. Enterprises, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench decided two issues. Live consignment (for the Revenue): Mis-declaration was manifest; confiscation, redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and duty of Rs. 27,48,995 with interest were upheld, and the plea of mis-dispatch by the supplier was of no consequence (para 5.1). Past consignments (for the importer): If expert evidence was needed for the live consignment, it was equally needed for the past ones. The importer's invoices described door frame parts, Hari Krishnan's statement supported iron door plates, resale invoices of a third party lacked evidentiary value, and the importer's statement was retracted and untested by cross-examination; the demand was set aside (paras 5.1–5.3, 5.5). The Hon'ble Tribunal also noted that the Department's own finding made Hari Krishnan the beneficial owner liable to duty, relying on Xiaomi Technology (paras 5.3–5.4). Order: Section 114A penalty reduced to Rs. 27,48,995; Section 114AA and Section 112 penalties on the co-noticees reduced, with no Section 112 penalty on Alpha Impex (para 5.5). HC · Delhi ● Allowed Info Edge (India) Limited v Government of NCT of Delhi Through The Office of Additional District Magistrate Collector of Stamps HQ & Anr. 2026-juristway.com-3450-HC(Delhi)-CORP 06 November 2026 In Info Edge (India) Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2026-juristway.com-3450-HC(Delhi)-CORP , where, more than four years after the NCLT sanctioned the amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary Highorbit Careers into the petitioner without issue of shares, the Collector of Stamps issued a notice dated 08.10.2026 demanding proof of stamp duty under Article 23 with proposed penalty, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court followed the coordinate bench in Ambuja Cement and its order in Freecharge Payment Technologies (paras 9–12). The Revenue's plea that the 1937 Notification stood repealed had been rejected in Ambuja Cement, and the pendency of LPA 236/2025 against it, without a stay, did not dilute its binding effect (paras 10–11). The notice and all consequential proceedings were quashed (para 14). HC · Orissa ● Allowed Shaista Parween v The Assistant Commissioner GST and Central Excise Office of The Assistant Commissioner GST and Central Excise Rourkela. 2026-juristway.com-3449-HC(Orissa)-ST 06 November 2026 In Shaista Parween v. Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Rourkela, 2026-juristway.com-3449-HC(Orissa)-ST , where an ex parte Order-in-Original dated 04.05.2023 confirmed service tax for FY 2015-16 against a proprietor who had died on 27.04.2020, and a letter dated 05.04.2024 threatened recovery of Rs. 66,67,040 under Section 87 against his widow, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that the proceedings abated on his death (para 8). Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabina Abraham, the Hon'ble High Court held that a taxing statute cannot be extended by implication; unlike Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, Chapter V has no provision fastening liability on legal representatives, and a legal heir is not an "agent" within Section 65(7) (paras 7–7.28, 8–8.1). The Order-in-Original and the recovery letter were quashed and the writ petition allowed despite the plea of an alternative appeal remedy (paras 8.2–9.1). CESTAT · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Mahabir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad 2026-juristway.com-3448-CESTAT(Allahabad)-ST 06 November 2026 In Mahabir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad, 2026-juristway.com-3448-CESTAT(Allahabad)-ST , where a registered automobile dealer was issued a notice on 16.12.2020 demanding Rs. 13,51,932 for October 2014 to June 2017 on the difference between Form 26AS receipts and ST-3 returns, the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench held that the notice was beyond the normal period for every half-year (paras 7–8). The receipts were in audited accounts and VAT returns, included insurance commission taxable under reverse charge and parts reimbursements subjected to VAT, and the lower authorities had merely reproduced the proviso without a finding of intent (paras 9–11). Following Ajitabh Mishra, the demand was held time-barred and the appeal allowed (paras 15–17). Load more
