Indirect Tax Amicus, June 2026

Click the 'View PDF' option above to read the full Amicus.

Article

Jurisdiction of Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal: Statutory framework and early judicial signals 

By Shreyash Agrawal and Karan Nankani

With the start of functioning of GSTAT, questions relating to jurisdiction between the Principal Bench and the State Benches have begun to arise in practice. The Tribunal has recently taken differing approaches on the issue. The article in this issue of Indirect Tax Amicus thus analysis the scope and ambit of Principal Bench’s jurisdiction under Section 109 of the CGST Act. Considering the statutory scheme, Bombay High Court’s decision in V.S. Products and the recent GSTAT decisions, the authors point out that these decisions leave open an important practical question: Where the jurisdictional State Bench has not yet commenced functioning, can an appeal nonetheless be instituted before the Principal Bench so that the statutory remedy remains efficacious? 

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Notifications and Circulars

• GSTAT appeal filing extended till 31 July 2026
• Change in principal place of business – Competent authority at various stages of proceedings
• GSTAT Advisory on online payment of Court Fees
• GSTAT – Review of pre-deposit requirements

Ratio decidendi

• Import of service – Procurement service by foreign company to its sister company in India is not covered as ‘intermediary’ – GSTAT Principal Bench
• Cross-border services – Intermediary vs. Import/Export – GSTAT deplores Revenue department’s contrary views – GSTAT Principal Bench
• Partners of a company (taxable person) can be imposed penalty under Section 122(1A) – Gauhati High Court differs with Bombay HC while agrees with Delhi HC
• Penalty under Section 122(1A) can be imposed for periods before the said section came into force - Gauhati High Court differs with Bombay HC while agrees with Delhi HC
• Healthcare services through another hospital are also exempt under Sl. No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R); Classification of service must follow its substance – Karnataka High Court
• Demand – Section 74 proceedings by central authorities not barred by closure of Section 73 proceedings by State authorities on same facts – Delhi High Court
• Failure to file annual return – Late fee under Section 47(2) and general penalty under Section 125, both imposable – Madras High Court
• Amnesty scheme under Section 128A – Delay in filing interest waiver application beyond 3 months from notified date is not fatal – Karnataka High Court
• Adjudication order passed and uploaded after the cut-off date is not sustainable – Telangana High Court
• Registration as ISD is not mandatory prior to substitution of Section 20 w.e.f. 1 April 2025 – Kerala High Court
• Intimation under Form DRC-01A is mandatory, notwithstanding use of word ‘may’ in Rule 142(1A), as statutory provisions in Section 74(5) are mandatory – Allahabad High Court
• Service of order – Uploading on portal is not enough; small business cannot be expected to repeatedly access portal through multiple windows – Madras High Court
• Demand – Initiation of fresh proceeding against legal heir after death of taxable person even if the business is discontinued, is sustainable – Madras High Court
• GST Council has no power to ratify any notification issued by Central Government – Madras High Court
• Garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-13 raising demand not reflected in summary of order-in-original in Form GST DRC-07 is not sustainable – Telangana High Court

Customs and FTP

Notifications and Circulars

• Testing of export consignments by CRCL when mandatory
• Highly specialized equipment – Exemption from Electronics and IT Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021 revised
• QCO exemption to imports by SEZs – FTP aligned with SEZ Act and Rules
• Manganese ore from Australia now eligible for FTA benefits
• Goods for generation of nuclear power – Exemption from BCD for period 1 April 2019 till 31 January 2026

Ratio decidendi

• Glucometers are classifiable Heading 9027 and not under Heading 9018 of Customs Tariff – Use in field of medicine is not material – CESTAT Mumbai
• Gold chain in running length is classifiable as article of jewellery – CESTAT Bengaluru
• Corrigendum to SCN after adjudication order reserved for passing, is not sustainable – Section 28(7) is not applicable for period prior to 29 March 2018 – Gujarat High Court
• Exemption not deniable if purpose of condition met, though IGCR procedure not followed – CESTAT New Delhi
• Exemption – Condition of non-use in particular way satisfied if goods sold after import – CESTAT New Delhi
• Assessment when cannot be modified after the goods have already been exported – CESTAT New Delhi
• Customs has no locus standi to deny benefit of DEPB scrips issued on basis of FOB value – CESTAT New Delhi
• Electronics and IT Goods (Requirements of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021 – Exemption to multi-function copying printer machines as highly specialised equipment – CESTAT Kolkata

Central Excise, Service Tax and VAT

• Outbound Tour services, between two places outside India, not liable to service tax under Tour Operator services – CESTAT Mumbai
• EOU – Use of capital goods for excavation is use in manufacture of export goods – CESTAT Bengaluru
• Cenvat credit not deniable if taken before issuance of invoice, if payment made before – CESTAT Kolkata
• No service tax liable under Port services for demurrage charges paid to vessel owners for delay, or dispatch money collected from them for quick turnaround – CESTAT Hyderabad
• Cenvat credit on Leadership fee paid to foreign company for overall project management – CESTAT Hyderabad