Principal Commissioner Of Gst And Central Excise, Coimbatore vs M/S Riya Travel And Tours India Pvt. Ltd.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~47 to 49, 51, 53 to 57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 14.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010824642025
+ SERTA 21/2025 & CM APPL. 66489/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, COIMBATOR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS INDIA PVT. LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor & Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
(48)
# CNR No. DLHC010836902025
+ SERTA 22/2025 & CM APPL. 67655/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, MADURAI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS INDIA PVT. LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor & Mr. Yatharth
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Tripathi, Advs.
(49)
# CNR No. DLHC010836912025
+ SERTA 23/2025 & CM APPL. 67797/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
MADURAI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS INDIA PVT. LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor & Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
(51)
# CNR No. DLHC010887882025
+ SERTA 29/2025 & CM APPL. 70787/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
SALEM .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS INDIA PVT. LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor & Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
(53)
# CNR No. DLHC010894542025
+ SERTA 31/2025 & CM APPL. 71183/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
MADURAI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Mr.
Rajpal Singh & Mr. Aditya
Bajaj, Advs.
(54)
# CNR No. DLHC010894552025
+ SERTA 32/2025 & CM APPL. 71270/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
COIMBATORE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
versus
M/S AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT. LTD......Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Mr.
Rajpal Singh & Mr. Aditya
Bajaj, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
(55)
# CNR No. DLHC010968902025
+ SERTA 34/2025 & CM APPL. 76089/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI .....Appellant
Through:
versus
M/S AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT. LTD......Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Mr.
Rajpal Singh & Mr. Aditya
Bajaj, Advs.
(56)
# CNR No. DLHC010977422025
+ SERTA 35/2025 & CM APPL. 76865/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
DELHI NORTH .....Appellant
Through:
versus
M/S AKBAR TRAVELS OF INDIA PVT. LTD......Respondent
Through: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Adv.
with Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Mr.
Rajpal Singh & Mr. Aditya
Bajaj, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
(57)
# CNR No. DLHC010035522026
+ SERTA 4/2026 & CM APPL. 7302/2026 & CM APPL.
7304/2026
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
TIRUCHIRAPALLI .....Appellant
Through:
versus
M/S RIYA TRAVEL AND TOURS (I) PVT LT.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor & Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals are filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act,1994 against the
order dated 25.09.2024 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘the tribunal’).
2. For convenience, the facts are being taken from SERTA
21/2025.
3. On 19.10.2015, a show cause notice (for short ‘SCN’) was
issued to the respondent for recovery of service tax on the services
rendered as an air travel agent. The order-in-original (OIO) dated
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
30.05.2018 was passed confirming the demand raised in SCN. The
respondent was successful before the tribunal and vide order dated
25.09.2024, the impugned demand was set aside. Hence, the present
appeal was filed and the substantial questions of law proposed are
reproduced below:-
“a. Whether the amount of service tax retained by the 'agent'
i.e. the Respondent, is recoverable under Section 73A(3)
of Finance Act, 1994?
b. When the commission received from the airlines by the
‘agents’ and some part of it is paused on to ‘sub-agents’
whether in this case the service is provided by sub-agents
to agents in the head 'air travel agent services'?
c. Whether the Ld. CESTAT is correct in holding that the
Respondent has not provided any services to the
Airlines?
d. Whether the Ld. CESTAT is correct in holding that
commission received by the Respondent from the airlines
was not inclusive of service tax?
e. Whether the Ld. CESTAT is correct in holding that the
Respondent had provided services to the sub-agents and
charging of Service Tax from the sub-agents was justified
when the Respondent had paid/shared the commission
received from the Airlines to the sub-agents?
f. Whether the Respondent rendered air travel agent
services to the airlines as contended by the department or
the Respondent rendered this service to the sub-agents or
customers as contended by the Respondent?
g. Whether it is the Respondent that is providing service to
the sub-agents are providing service to the Respondent?
h. Whether the Respondent rendered any service to the
airlines or services were rendered by the Respondent only
to the subagents?”
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
4. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary
objection that the department could not have preferred the appeals in
view of the instructions dated 06.08.2024 as the amount involved is
less than two crores.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the demand in
dispute is less than two crores. The submission is that there are
cascading effects of the issue involved in the appeals and hence the
circular should not apply. Reliance is on the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Herbal
Limited (2011) 15 SCC 482 to contend that in case of a cascading
effect, the circular ipso facto shall not apply. Reliance is upon the
decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Central Goods and
Service Tax v. M/s Pan Parag India Limited 2021 SCC OnLine Gau
2737 and the decision of Patna High Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Indian Oil
Corporation Limited Miscellaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2019 decided
on 14.05.2026 to contend that the decision of the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya Herbal Limited (supra) was
followed by the High Courts in cases of Central Excise as well as
under the Goods and Service Tax.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce the
instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs
(CBEC) dated 17.08.2011, 26.12.2014, 17.12.2015, 03.04.2018,
22.08.2019 & 06.08.2024.
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 17.08.2011
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 26.12.2014
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 17.12.2015
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 03.04.2018
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 12 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 22.08.2019
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
Instruction of CBEC dated 06.08.2024
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 17 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
7. The instruction dated 17.08.2011 carved out two exceptions.
The first where the validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is
under challenge and second where notification/instruction/order or
circular has been held illegal or ultra vires .
8. On 26.12.2014, CBEC issued a clarification stating that the
monetary limits for filing appeals would apply to cases of a recurring
nature and appeals in such cases would not be filed, except in two
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 18 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
cases specified in the circular dated 17.08.2011. It was further
clarified that despite pending appeals in the higher appellate forums
subsequent case of the same party or other party shall not be pursued
if it falls below the prescribed monetary limit.
9. The instructions dated 17.12.2015 partially modified the
instructions dated 17.08.2011 by adding one more exception in
paragraph 3 relating to classification and refunds issues of a legal
and/or recurring nature.
10. By the instructions dated 03.04.2018, sub-clause ‘c’ of
paragraph 3 of the instructions dated 17.08.2011 which operated as an
exception to the general monetary limits was withdrawn.
11. By the instructions dated 06.08.2024, the monetary limits were
enhanced. The two exceptions provided in the instructions dated
17.08.2011 were retained and it was clarified that except for the
modification to the monetary limits, all other terms and conditions of
the instructions dated 17.08.2011 stand.
12. From the instructions quoted above, it is clear that the vires or
validity of the provisions of the Act or Rule or
notification/instruction/order or circular are the only exception for
filing the appeal below the prescribed monetary limit. It is an admitted
fact that the dispute in these appeals involves neither the validity of
any provision nor of circular/notification/instruction.
13. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Surya Herbal Limited (supra) is of no avail. The case was with regard
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 19 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
to circular issued by the CBDT for filing appeals under the Income
Tax Act, 1961. The issue of applicability of circular was not decided,
only liberty was granted to the Income Tax Department to approach
the High Court to point out that there is a cascading effect and that the
circular ipso facto would not apply.
14. In the case of Central Goods and Service Tax v. M/s Pan
Parag India Limited (supra), the department relied upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surya
Herbal Limited (supra) to contend that the instructions would not
apply where there is a cascading effect and a common principle may
be involved in a subsequent group of matters or a large number of
matters. Reliance was placed by the department on instructions dated
22.08.2019, it is by this instruction the monetary limits were
increased. Clause 4 of the instructions dated 22.08.2019 stated that the
substantial questions of law as described in paragraph 1.3 of
instructions dated 17.08.2011 would be contested irrespective of the
monetary limit. On perusal of the instructions dated 17.08.2011, it is
evident that there is no paragraph 1.3. The reference in clause 4 of the
instructions dated 22.08.2019 is in fact to paragraph 3 of the
instructions dated 17.08.2011 which provides only two exceptions as
discussed above and no exception for cascading effects or bunch
matters is there.
15. With due respect we are not in concurrence with the view taken
by the Gauhati High Court.
16. The department made another attempt to rigour out of the
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 20 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
instructions issued before the Patna High Court in Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(supra) contending that the issue of a recurring nature had to be
entertained irrespective of the amount involved as mentioned in the
instructions. The same argument is made before this Court.
17. The department failed to bring to the notice of the Patna High
Court that the instructions dated 17.12.2015 were withdrawn by the
instructions dated 03.04.2018, with effect from 03.04.2018.
18. The monetary limits for filing an appeal prevailing as on date
are Rs. 60 lakhs before the CESTAT, Rs.2 crores before the High
Court and Rs.5 crores before the Supreme Court. The two exceptions
being:
(i) Challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of an
Act or Rule.
(ii) Challenge to the notification/instructions/order or circular held
to be illegal or ultra vires .
19. Before concluding we would be failing if we do not appreciate
the efforts put by learned counsel for the appellant to assist the court
on instructions and circular.
20. The department, if it deems appropriate, should take up this
matter with the Board/Secretary to ensure uniform implementation of
the instructions and circular. It is noticed regularly, that
Commissionerate’s are filing appeals despite the binding instructions
issued with an object to reduce litigation.
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 21 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37
21. The present case does not fall in any of the exceptions. The
appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. The substantial questions
of law proposed are kept open. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
SHAIL JAIN, J
OCTOBER 14, 2026
‘JK’
Reportable: Yes
Signature Not Verified
SERTA 21/2025 & connected matters Page 22 of 22
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
15:16:37