GST Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra22 July 2026

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Raigad v. Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd

APPEAL NOS. APL/4/THN/2026, APL/5/THN/2026 & APL/6/THN/2026

The ruling in brief

Where supplier discontinued use of brand name on packaging and printed only its name and address to comply with Food Safety and Standards Regulations, such statutory disclosure did not constitute use of a brand name and exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(R) could not be denied; no infirmity could be found with order of appellate authority setting aside demand against assessee/supplier

Provisions considered

CGST S.11

Section 11 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim

Gujarat High Court2 Sept 2026

For assessee

Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where petitioner-entity registered under section 12AA of income tax act, 1961 carried out pollution control and treatment of industrial waste, such activity is preservation of environment and falls under clause 2(r)(iv) of Chapter 99, thus services attracted Nil rate of GST as per Notification 12/2017 and levy under Notification 11/2017 was not applicable. GST: Where petitioners, having relied on charitable exemption under section 12AA of Income tax act, 1961, did not pay GST for specified period but later obtained registration and began paying tax, invocation of section 74 on grounds of mis- declaration or wilful suppression was not justified as all facts were known, there was no mala fide intent or deliberate evasion, and show cause notice was quashed

Delhi High Court13 Aug 2026

For revenue

Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Where an Advocate registered as Insolvency Professional rendered insolvency and receivership services pursuant to NCLT appointment, such services were not classified as legal services and hence not covered under reverse charge, making professional liable under forward charge to obtain GST registration and issue GST- compliant invoices, while legal services rendered as Advocate would continue under reverse charge

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Raigad v. Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Raigad v. Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Cent Bank Home Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax

Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Kanwal Chaudhary v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Read the full analysis