This compilation indexes twelve rulings from the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and various High Courts decided between February and April 2026, each engaging Section 75 — the provision governing interest on delayed payment of tax — alongside related demand and adjudication provisions in the GST and pre-GST service tax framework. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a consolidated reference point for Section 75 litigation patterns across multiple forums.

Research index only. This page catalogues publicly available judicial orders for research and reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or an opinion on the merits of any dispute. Always verify the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before relying on any entry below.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 75 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and its mirror provision under the erstwhile Finance Act, 1994 applicable to service tax) provides for the levy of interest on delayed payment of tax. Where a registered person fails to pay the tax due within the prescribed period, interest accrues at the notified rate from the date on which the tax was due to be paid until the date of its actual payment. Section 75 also contains procedural safeguards relating to the passing of orders following a show-cause notice, including the requirement that the adjudicating authority consider the representation of the person against whom proceedings are initiated before confirming any demand. The provision is closely linked with Section 73 (determination of tax not paid or short paid in non-fraud cases) and Section 74 (determination in fraud or suppression cases), under both of which an interest liability under Section 75 ordinarily crystallises alongside the principal tax demand.

The 12 rulings

1. District Information Technology vs Gurugram

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 28 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(1), 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 60529 of 2021) was filed before the CESTAT Chandigarh Regional Bench, arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1-21/ST/COMMR/VMJ/RTK/2021-22 dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Central GST, Rohtak. The source preview indicates a batch of fifteen appeals filed by various District Information Technology Society units across Haryana, with demands of service tax and equal penalties confirmed against each unit; per the source preview, the aggregate service tax demand for the lead appellant (DITS, Gurugram) was Rs. 2,25,55,027 along with an equal penalty and an additional penalty of Rs. 10,000.

2. M/S. Shyam Electric vs The Union Of India

Bench: Patna High Court
Date: 15 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73, 75, 169
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11303 of 2025 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. Per the source preview, the petitioner M/s. Shyam Electric, a proprietary concern based at Chandni Chowk Market, Frazer Road, Patna, challenged proceedings before the court with the Union of India, the State of Bihar, and multiple state tax officers arrayed as respondents; the full merits and outcome are not captured in the available source preview.

3. Commissioner Of Cgst And Excise vs M/S Rishu Enterprise

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(2), 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Commissioner of CGST and Excise, Dibrugarh challenged Final Order No. 75177/2024 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata (Case No. C.Ex.App./6/2025 before the Gauhati High Court). Per the source preview, one of the grounds raised by the appellant was that the CESTAT failed to appreciate the seriousness of the respondent/assessee's conduct, which involved non-compliance with statutory requirements and failure to furnish documentary evidence despite being given ample opportunity, and that the respondent/assessee did not submit any written reply to the Demand-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020.

4. Rama Nand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 1 April 2026
Sections engaged: 33, 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CWP-9452-2026) was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Per the source preview, the petitioners sought setting aside of an order dated 13.03.2026 by the Registrar General, Haryana dismissing their appeal against an order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the State Registrar, as well as connected orders; the dispute appears to concern proceedings under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, with the tax-related sections engaged noted in the case record.

5. Biswajit Sutradhar vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 16 March 2026
Sections engaged: 74A, 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Biswajit Sutradhar, owner of M/s Puspa Pharma (GSTIN 18CWYPS8147Q1ZW), filed WP(C)/1235/2026 before the Gauhati High Court challenging proceedings arising from a summary of show cause dated 18.07.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-01 for the tax period from April 2024 to March 2025. Per the source preview, the petitioner's case was that no proper Show Cause Notice was attached to the summary in the portal, and that an order was subsequently passed on August 19, 2025 in Form GST DRC-07; the full merits are not captured in the available source preview.

6. Larsen And Toubro Ltd vs Chennai-Iii

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 9 March 2026
Sections engaged: 73(1), 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the CESTAT Chennai, consolidating four service tax appeals — ST/41233/2015, ST/40660/2017, ST/41395/2018, and ST/41823/2018 — arising out of multiple orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai. Per the source preview, the appeals involved two appellant entities, namely L&T (ECC Workshop) and L&T (TLTRS), and arose from show-cause notices and statements of demand issued as early as SCN No. 31/2014 dated 15.10.2014; the full merits and outcome are not captured in the available source preview.

7. M/S Hindustan Equipment Craft Thr. Its vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 27 February 2026
Sections engaged: 7(1), 73, 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, M/s. Hindustan Equipment Craft through its Proprietor Chandrashekhar Joshi of Nagpur, filed Writ Petition No. 1257 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Per the source preview, the challenge was to an impugned order dated 30/12/2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Nagpur, arising out of a show cause notice dated 22/9/2025 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why GST should not be recovered; the court issued Rule returnable forthwith and took up the petition for final hearing with the consent of both parties.

8. M/S Orane Consulting Pvt Ltd vs Noida

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 25 February 2026
Sections engaged: 73, 75, 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Service Tax Appeal No. 70827 of 2025 was filed before the CESTAT Allahabad Regional Bench (E-Hearing), directed against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-000-APP-132-24-25 dated 16/07/2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida. Per the source preview, the Commissioner (Appeals) had partially allowed Appeal No. 379/ST/Noida/Appl/NOI/2023-24 dated 15.03.2024 filed by the appellant, partially modifying Order-in-Original No. 40/ADC/ST/CGST/NOIDA/2023-24 dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate Noida; the extent of modification and the CESTAT's final order are not fully captured in the available source preview.

9. Shri Hitesh Patel vs State Of Rajasthan

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 23 February 2026
Sections engaged: 75, 93
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Shri Hitesh Patel, son of the deceased-assessee Late Shri Bhagwan Lal Dangi, filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3194/2026 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged an Assessment Order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (SGST), Circle-B, Udaipur Ward-III; the full merits and outcome are not captured in the available source preview.

10. Shri Hitesh Patel vs State Of Rajasthan

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Date: 10 February 2026
Sections engaged: 74, 75(4), 93(1)(b)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3078/2026 (connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3081/2026) before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Per the source preview, the petitioner is Shri Hitesh Patel, son of Late Shri Bhagwan Lal Dangi of Udaipur, and the respondents include the State of Rajasthan, the Chief Commissioner (SGST), the Assistant Commissioner (SGST) Circle-B Udaipur Ward-III, the Joint Commissioner State Tax, the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar Girwa, and the Union of India; the full merits and outcome are not captured in the available source preview.

11. Principal Commissioner Of Central vs M S Carrier Air Conditionong

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 9 February 2026
Sections engaged: 65(19), 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (STA-16-2025, with connected CM-23215-16-CII-2025) was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, seeking setting aside of Order No. FO/ST/A/60692/2023-ST dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in STA No. 56266 of 2013. Per the source preview, the appellant submitted a question of law arising in the appeal, and the respondent-assessee was described as a wholly owned subsidiary of Carrier Corporation; the full question of law and outcome are not captured in the available source preview.

12. Md Shoriful Islam vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 6 February 2026
Sections engaged: 73, 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, Md Shoriful Islam of Nagaon, Assam, filed WP(C)/471/2026 before the Gauhati High Court. Per the source preview, the petitioner was issued a Summary of Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2024 bearing Reference No. ZD180524001115W in Form GST DRC-01, in which it was mentioned that a Show Cause Notice was attached along with an attachment as regards the determination of tax; the petitioner did not reply to the Show Cause Notice — the reason for non-reply and the full merits are not completely captured in the available source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 75 consistently appears alongside Section 73 demand provisions. Across the majority of rulings in this compilation, Section 75 (interest on delayed tax) is engaged not in isolation but alongside Section 73 or its sub-sections (73(1), 73(2)), reflecting the standard adjudication pattern where a tax demand and the consequential interest liability are confirmed together in a single order or challenged together in a single appeal.
Show Cause Notice procedural adequacy is a recurring battleground. Multiple cases in this compilation — including the Gauhati High Court matters involving Biswajit Sutradhar (WP(C)/1235/2026) and Md Shoriful Islam (WP(C)/471/2026) — involve challenges where the adequacy of the show cause notice or the summary issued in Form GST DRC-01 is a central issue, suggesting that procedural compliance in initiating demand proceedings is a frequent trigger for litigation engaging Section 75.
Batch litigation by similarly situated assessees. Case 1 (District Information Technology Society) illustrates a pattern of fifteen related appeals filed by district-level societies across Haryana, all arising from comparable service tax demands and penalties. This batch-filing pattern is a practical feature of Section 73/75 litigation where a common policy or service classification question affects multiple units of the same organisation.
Multi-tier appellate progression. Several matters in this compilation reflect disputes that have traversed multiple tiers — from original adjudication through Commissioner (Appeals) to CESTAT and onward to High Courts — before the Section 75 interest question is finally addressed. Cases such as M/S Orane Consulting Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Allahabad) and Larsen And Toubro Ltd (CESTAT Chennai) illustrate how service tax interest demands under Section 75 can remain in litigation across decades of appeal stages.
Successor/legal heir standing in GST proceedings. Cases 9 and 10 (both Shri Hitesh Patel vs State of Rajasthan) involve the son of a deceased assessee challenging assessment orders, raising the issue of how liability and interest demands under Section 75 are pursued against legal heirs — a procedural question that appears with increasing frequency as older assessments reach adjudication after the death of the original taxpayer.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a research index only. Each entry above provides the minimum identity fields necessary to locate the source judgment — bench, date, appeal or writ petition number where available in the source preview, and sections engaged. Researchers should use this information to retrieve the full text of each judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official court portal (e.g., Gauhati High Court, Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court), or CESTAT cause-list archives before drawing any conclusions about the legal position. The "Outcome not specified in source" designation for all entries means the TaxNoticeAI corpus did not capture a final operative direction in the available text preview; in several cases this is because the source preview reflects only the opening paragraphs of a longer order.

When using these rulings for research, check whether any order has been subsequently stayed, reversed on further appeal, or distinguished by a coordinate bench. CESTAT orders are appealable to the High Court on questions of law, and High Court orders are appealable to the Supreme Court; a ruling listed here may have been overturned or affirmed at a higher tier after its date of decision. Similarly, verify whether the CBIC has issued any circular, instruction, or clarification on the Section 75 interest rate or on the procedural requirements for show cause notices that may be directly relevant to the legal question raised in a particular case.

Finally, note that this compilation spans both the pre-GST service tax regime (Finance Act, 1994) and the post-GST regime (CGST Act, 2017 and mirror State GST statutes). The text of "Section 75" and its interaction with demand provisions differs between these two regimes, and researchers must confirm which statute applies to the case under review before treating any ruling as precedent for a different statutory context.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 75 Interest on Delayed Tax: 12 GST & Service Tax Rulings (2026)