Nectar Lifesciences CGST case remanded for fresh consideration
- The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana remanded a CGST dispute involving Nectar Lifesciences back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on September 24, 2026
- The Principal Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, filed a civil writ petition challenging the Appellate Authority's order dated May 27, 2025
- The earlier appellate order had dropped a ₹89.32 crore demand and remanded a ₹6.24 crore demand for de novo adjudication
- The Appellate Authority had confirmed ineligible ITC of ₹17.06 lakh (CGST ₹8.53 lakh and SGST ₹8.53 lakh) with an equivalent penalty
- The company states the final quantum of liability is presently not ascertainable and reserves the right to appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal if required

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Nectar Lifesciences Limited disclosed on October 3, 2026, that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana remanded a Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) dispute back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration, with a potential financial exposure of up to ₹89.32 crore plus interest and penalties.
Background of the CGST dispute
The Commissioner (Appeal), acting as the Appellate Authority, had passed an order dated May 27, 2025, in a matter involving Nectar Lifesciences. The Appellate Authority's order addressed multiple demands and penalties raised by the Principal Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, Punjab. The key outcomes of that appellate order are summarised below.
| Matter | Appellate authority's order (May 27, 2025) |
|---|---|
| Ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) | Confirmed ₹17.06 lakh (CGST ₹8.53 lakh and SGST ₹8.53 lakh) with equivalent penalty |
| Balance demand | Dropped ₹89.32 crore along with applicable interest and penalties |
| Separate demand | Remanded ₹6.24 crore to proper officer for de novo adjudication with adjustment of taxes/interest already paid |
| Personal penalties | Quashed ₹25,000 each imposed on Sanjiv Goyal (Chairman and Managing Director), R. K. Aggarwal, and Sandeep Goel (former employees) |
Writ petition and high court order
Following the Appellate Authority's order, the Principal Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, filed a civil writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the appellate order. The writ petition sought, among other reliefs:
- An appropriate writ order quashing and setting aside the impugned order
- Directions restoring the Order-in-Original that was quashed in the impugned order
- An interim stay on the operation of the impugned order
The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, vide its order dated September 24, 2026, remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
Financial implication for the company
Nectar Lifesciences stated that in the event the Appellate Authority reconsiders the matter, the company may be exposed to the following financial liabilities:
| Potential liability | Amount |
|---|---|
| Demand (with interest and penalties) | ₹89.32 crore |
| Separate remanded demand | ₹6.24 crore |
The company noted that the final quantum of liability is presently not ascertainable. Nectar Lifesciences also stated that it reserves the right to prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, if required. The disclosure was made in compliance with Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, and the related SEBI Master Circular.
Historical Stock Returns for Nectar Lifesciences
| 1 Day | 5 Days | 1 Month | 6 Months | 1 Year | 5 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -2.57% | -7.50% | -17.96% | +10.00% | -28.96% | -65.20% |
How might the potential ₹95.56 crore liability impact Nectar Lifesciences' working capital and liquidity ratios in the upcoming fiscal quarters?
Will the remand to the Appellate Authority trigger a re-evaluation of the company's credit ratings by major agencies due to increased contingent liabilities?
What is the likelihood of Nectar Lifesciences pursuing further litigation at the Tribunal level, and how could this extend the timeline for financial resolution?

































