Plus Max Duty Free (Kovai) (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
Plus Max Duty Free (Kovai) (P.) Ltd. filed before the Madras High Court (WP 25986 and 25991/2026, 14 August 2026) for refund of service tax paid on licence fees and conservancy charges at airport duty-free outlets under the pre-GST regime, after claims were rejected as time-barred despite a favourable CESTAT ruling. Section 142 CGST, Finance Act 1994 Section 83 and Central Excise Sections 11B and 11BB framed transitional refund. Following binding Division Bench precedent in Union of India v. Flemingo Duty Free Shop (P.) Ltd., refunds were directed to be processed with applicable interest rather than dismissed on limitation alone. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Duty-free operators may pursue legacy service tax refunds post-GST transition when Flemingo lineage applies to airport concession payments.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.142 — Miscellaneous transitional provisions.
- Finance Act 1994 S.83 — Finance Act 1994 S.83 as considered in the ruling.
- Central Excise S.11B — Central Excise S.11B as considered in the ruling.
- Central Excise S.11BB — Central Excise S.11BB as considered in the ruling.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee
Naganath Constructions v. Government of Karnataka
Naganath Constructions and allied petitioners filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105663, 105759 and 106110/2026, 31 August 2026) as Class-I contractors who executed civil works for the State, paid differential GST after transition under Section 142 CGST, and sought reimbursement. With the State benefiting from completed works, the court held contractors acquired a legal right to reimbursement of incremental GST liability arising from transition, consistent with Er. Roland S. State entities were directed to promptly verify and pay differential amounts confined to GST introduction impact rather than unrelated contractual disputes. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Bulk contractor petitions reinforce Karnataka's direction on government reimbursement of transition differentials subject to verification of invoices, challans, contract rates, payments and Section 142 transition claims.
In favour of the assessee
Er. Roland S. v. Government of Karnataka
Er. Roland S., a Class-I civil contractor, filed before the Karnataka High Court (WP 105716/2026, 30 July 2026) seeking reimbursement of differential GST paid on government works awarded before GST replaced VAT. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and transition principles applied. Having executed state contracts and remitted incremental tax after transition, the petitioner acquired a legal right to reimbursement of differential liability attributable to GST introduction, with the State as recipient of works contract services bound by earlier rulings. The court directed verification and reimbursement of the differential confined to incremental GST transition impact, not unrelated tax increases. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST government contractors in Karnataka may rely on this for recovery of transition-related tax from departments subject to proof of payment and contract terms.
See the decision
Executive Engineer v. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects (P.) Ltd
The Executive Engineer filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court (WA 1947/2025, 29 July 2026) concerning withholding of differential GST on municipal works executed under the earlier VAT and service tax regime. Sections 142 and 9 CGST and Article 226 were raised. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects had invoked arbitration under the contract, covering the reimbursement claim for transition tax. The Division Bench held the writ under Article 226 not maintainable where an arbitration clause exists and arbitral proceedings are pending, without adjudicating reimbursement merits on the writ side. Outcome: procedural dismissal of writ route. Contractors must pursue contractual arbitration rather than parallel writs when arbitration already covers GST differential claims, though Er. Roland S. remains relevant where no arbitration bar exists.
In favour of the assessee
Goutam Engineering Concern v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
Goutam Engineering Concern filed WPA No. 5150 of 2022 before the Calcutta High Court; judgment 14 September 2026. It performed electrical line repair and maintenance for West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., completing the work in 2015 before GST commenced. Billing and approval occurred in 2019; WBSEDCL withheld payment insisting on GST registration and tax invoices. The issue was the date of supply and whether completed pre-GST services could be taxed under CGST. The court held subsequent billing could not pull finished 2015 services into GST; withholding was wrongful. Payment was directed with interest, subject to deduction of any tax under the pre-GST regime. Outcome: assessee favoured. Sections 9 and 142 cited. Not legal advice. Government contractors should document completion dates and pre-GST invoices to resist post-facto GST demands on old works.
In favour of the assessee
Debojit Deb v. Union of India
Debojit Deb (Gauhati High Court, WP(C) 1653 of 2026, 12 June 2026, Kardak Ete, J.) executed government works contracts claiming service tax exemption under applicable notification while department raised demand referencing only Income-tax Form 26AS entries without independent verification or recording prerequisites for extended limitation under Finance Act 1994 Sections 73, 75, 77 and 78. Transition to GST via Section 142 did not cure jurisdictional defect in adjudication approach. Demand lacked substantiation beyond third-party tax deduction data. Court set aside order as unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Pre-GST service tax disputes illustrate limits of 26AS-only adjudication. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe; not legal advice. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.