This compilation indexes 12 rulings — from High Courts across India and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) — in which Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was a central or co-engaged provision. The rulings span May 2025 to August 2026 and arise from a range of procedural and substantive challenges to service tax demand confirmations. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, law firm researchers, and compliance professionals who need a structured, citation-ready index of recent adjudication on this provision.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference. It does not constitute legal or tax advice. Readers should verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on any entry.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 empowers the Central Excise Officer to determine the amount of service tax due from a person where service tax has not been levied, not been paid, has been short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded. The provision operates as the confirmatory limb of the show-cause-notice mechanism: once a notice is issued under the relevant sub-sections, the proper officer adjudicates the demand and passes an order determining the tax liability. The section is paired with related provisions governing interest (such as Section 75), penalties for suppression (such as Section 78), and other incidental charges, all of which frequently appear alongside Section 73(2) in the adjudication orders indexed below.

The 12 rulings

1. Chiluka Ramchadra Reddy vs The Union Of India

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 70, 73(2), 75, 77(2), 78, 87
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 5680 of 2026) was filed before the Telangana High Court challenging a garnishee notice dated 13.01.2026 issued against the petitioner's bank account for recovery of alleged service tax dues for the tax periods 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017). The petitioner contended that the demand of service tax for those periods had already been adjudicated and set aside in appeal vide order dated 12.08.2024, which also directed refund of amounts deposited during appeal, and that the department could not initiate fresh recovery proceedings on the same demand. The impugned order-in-original dated 20.11.2023 was alleged to have been passed without proper authority or opportunity, and the matter was listed before the Court for further hearing.

2. Raj Machine Tools vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 21 July 2026
Sections engaged: 73(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed two writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 25946 & 25947 of 2026) under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash impugned assessment orders passed in Form GST DRC-07 vide Reference No. ZD331125236422V / FY 2021-2022 dated 13.11.2025. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and permitting submission of all relevant supporting documents. The petitions were at a preliminary stage per the 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 appeal (C.Ex.App./6/2025) was filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Excise, Dibrugarh, before the Gauhati High Court challenging Final Order No. 75177/2024 dated 08.02.2024 passed by CESTAT, Kolkata. The appellant's grounds included that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the seriousness and gravity of the respondent/assessee's conduct, which involved non-compliance with statutory requirements and failure to furnish documentary evidence despite being given ample opportunity; additionally, the assessee did not submit any written reply to the Demand-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020. The court noted the applicable monetary thresholds for appellate forums (CESTAT: Rs. 60 lakh; High Courts: Rs. 2 crore; Supreme Court: Rs. 5 crore) in the context of the proceedings.

4. A.M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its vs The Union Of India, Thr. The Ministry Of

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 17 January 2026
Sections engaged: 73(2), 73(10)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is a subsequent hearing in Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2025 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. At the hearing dated 17.01.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that prayer clauses (c) and (d) of the petition were not being pressed for orders at that time. The court recorded that on 9.01.2026, a prior order had been passed, and the earlier order's observations noted that an order had to be passed by the 'proper officer' within a period of three years under the relevant provisions; the matter was adjourned for further hearing.

5. A.M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its vs The Union Of India, Thr. The Ministry Of

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 9 January 2026
Sections engaged: 73(2), 73(10)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is an earlier hearing in the same cluster of Writ Petition Nos. 7941 to 7943 of 2025 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, involving A.M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd. At the hearing on 09.01.2026, the court noted that the petitioner's counsel had filed an affidavit of service but the Registry had not recorded its satisfaction as regards service to respondents, and a vague report had been filed. The court directed the Registry to examine the affidavit and make categorical remarks regarding service to respondents before the matter could proceed further.

6. City Enterprises vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 January 2026
Sections engaged: 73(2), 73(9), 73(10)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner (W.P. No. 462 of 2026) filed a writ of certiorarified mandamus before the Madras High Court challenging an impugned order passed in Reference No. ZD3308241666734, GSTIN/ID: 33AJQPP4913N1ZN, dated 20.08.2024, for F.Y. 2019-20, seeking to quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought directions for the respondent to redo the assessment after affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The source preview discloses a tax demand table reflecting amounts under SGST, CGST, IGST, and CESS heads including undeclared output tax, excess ITC claims, and interest.

7. Varner Retail Services South Asia Pvt vs Assistant Commissioner Division -

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 16 December 2025
Sections engaged: 73(2), 76(1), 77(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P.(C) 12049/2023) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging an impugned order dated 30th June 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Division-Okhla, Central Goods and Service Tax (Delhi South), by which a demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 46,86,276/- was confirmed against the petitioner under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with certain penalties under Section 76(1) and Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The hearing was conducted in hybrid mode; the source preview also discloses a table of service tax demands for quarterly periods from April 2016 to June 2017, with individual demand amounts including Rs. 1,42,915/-, Rs. 2,49,731/-, Rs. 1,51,468/-, and Rs. 1,70,076/- totalling Rs. 8,95,576/- in that sub-table.

8. Page No.# 1/17 vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 2 December 2025
Sections engaged: 73(2), 75, 78(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C)/7805/2022) was filed before the Gauhati High Court by M/s Hotel Gateway Grandeur, a unit of Prerona Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati, challenging the Order-in-Original dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CE, Guwahati. By that order, service tax amounting to Rs. 72,33,010/- (Rupees Seventy-Two Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand and Ten) for the Financial Year 2016-17 was imposed on the petitioner in terms of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with interest and a penalty; the matter was pending adjudication before the High Court per the source preview.

9. Shalimar Corp Limited vs Ce & Cgst Lucknow

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 16 October 2025
Sections engaged: 73(2), 75, 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 70449 of 2018) arose out of Order-In-Original No. LKO/EXCUS/000/COM/ST/062/2017-18 dated 28.02.2018 of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow, by which a demand of service tax to the extent of Rs. 6,99,16,017/- (Rupees Six Crore Ninety-Nine Lakh Sixteen Thousand and Seventeen) was confirmed against the appellant under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, while the remaining demand of service tax was dropped. The CESTAT Allahabad Regional Bench (Court No. II) heard the appeal on 16 July 2025 and pronounced Final Order No. 70744/2025 on 16 October 2025.

10. Ms R A And Co vs The Additional Commissioner Of Central

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 21 July 2025
Sections engaged: 73(1), 73(2), 73(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 17239 of 2025) was filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Order in Original No. 102/2025 dated 04.02.2025, which confirmed a tax demand of Rs. 30,13,02,903 along with applicable interest and imposition of penalty. The petition specifically challenged the "bunching of Show Cause notices," i.e., the issuance of a single show cause notice by the respondents for more than one financial year, which the petitioner alleged was arbitrary, illegal, and in contravention of applicable constitutional provisions. The matter was listed before the court for hearing as per the source preview.

11. South Nests Software Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Chennai-Ii

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 30 May 2025
Sections engaged: 65B, 73(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 40096 of 2023) was filed before the CESTAT Chennai Regional Bench against Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2022 dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai. The appellate authority had, save for setting aside the penalty under a separate provision of the Finance Act, 1994, otherwise rejected the appeal against the Order in Original No. 30/2021-JC dated 25.08.2021 of the Adjudicating Authority, which had confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 69,12,601/- towards service tax liability. Final Order No. 40568/2025 was pronounced on 30.05.2025 after hearing on 11.02.2025.

12. Nobel King Purchase Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner-Commissioner Of GST&Cce

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 30 May 2025
Sections engaged: 65B, 73(2), 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Service Tax Appeal No. 40069 of 2022) was filed before the CESTAT Chennai Regional Bench against Order-in-Original No. 24/2021(C) dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, confirming a demand of service tax of Rs. 2,23,98,376/- towards service tax liability for the period from 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, along with appropriate interest and equivalent penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Final Order No. 40567/2025 was pronounced on 30.05.2025 after hearing on 06.02.2025.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 73(2) as the confirmatory demand provision. Across multiple cases — including cases 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 — Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 appears as the specific sub-section under which the original adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand. This reflects its established role as the operative provision for finalising assessed tax liability after the show-cause-notice stage.
Frequent pairing with interest and penalty provisions. In a significant number of rulings in this index (cases 1, 3, 8, 9, 12), Section 73(2) is engaged alongside interest provisions and penalty provisions. This clustering suggests that demand confirmation orders are rarely standalone — they routinely also adjudicate interest liability and, where alleged suppression exists, penalty liability under related sections.
Writ challenges to demand orders across multiple High Courts. Cases 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 all involve writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before various High Courts (Telangana, Madras, Bombay, Delhi, Gauhati) challenging demand or assessment orders. This pattern indicates that challenges to orders involving Section 73(2) frequently proceed by way of constitutional writ rather than being exhausted only through the statutory appellate hierarchy.
Natural justice and procedural irregularity as grounds for challenge. Cases 2, 6, and 10 each disclose, from the source previews, that the petitioner raised grounds relating to denial of a fair opportunity of hearing, violation of principles of natural justice, or procedural irregularities in the issuance of notices (including the "bunching" of show-cause notices for multiple financial years in a single notice, as in case 10). These grounds appear as a recurring thread across writ-stage proceedings.
CESTAT and High Court jurisdictional interplay. Cases 3 and 9 involve proceedings that have moved through the CESTAT layer before reaching the High Court (case 3) or being finally decided at CESTAT (case 9). The monetary thresholds for forum selection noted in case 3 (CESTAT: Rs. 60 lakh; High Courts: Rs. 2 crore; Supreme Court: Rs. 5 crore) are directly relevant to understanding the jurisdictional routing of service tax demand disputes of varying quantum.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a starting point for locating and categorising rulings involving Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Each entry is keyed to the court, bench, date, and sections engaged as extracted from the source corpus. Researchers should use the party names, writ petition numbers, appeal numbers, and dates disclosed in each entry to locate the full judgment text on official court portals (such as indiankanoon.org, the Madras High Court's judis portal, or CESTAT's official records) before drawing any conclusions about the applicable legal position.

Given that several of these rulings are procedural or interlocutory orders — including orders directing service to respondents, recording non-pressing of prayer clauses, or listing matters for further hearing — researchers should verify whether a final substantive order has since been passed in the same matter. The outcome field for all 12 entries in this compilation reads "Outcome not specified in source," which means the dispositive final outcome was not captured in the available source preview. Independent verification against the full judgment is essential before treating any entry as a settled precedent.

Researchers should also check whether any of the High Court orders have been appealed to the Supreme Court, whether any CESTAT orders have been challenged in High Courts, and whether CBIC or the relevant commissionerates have issued any instructions or circulars that may affect the interpretation of Section 73(2) in the context of the specific fact-patterns disclosed in these rulings. Parallel proceedings, stay orders, and remand directions — which may not be visible in the source preview — can materially affect the precedential weight of any individual ruling.

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 73(2) Finance Act 1994: 12 Service Tax Demand Rulings (2025–2026)