SUPREME COURTLet GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme CourtCase Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and...
SUPREME COURT
Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court
Case Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner. During the hearing, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C
Cause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Cause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Cause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..
The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.
Cause Title: M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.
Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.
Cause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Cause Title: M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 29) ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."
“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
Bombay HC
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Case Number: SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed.
“HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process).
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/4/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.
The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/88/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Case Number: ITAT/36/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chhattisgarh HC
ITC Not Available On Cess For Electricity Supplied To Residential Township: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WPT No. 14 of 2021
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that input tax credit is not available on cess for electricity supplied to residential township.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal stated that the electricity generated is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer(assessee), hence, the assessee would not be entitled for ITC to electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township.
Delhi HC
Case title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025
The Delhi High Court has pulled up the GST Department for harassing a tax lawyer, by raiding his offices and seizing his files and electronic gadgets, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that unless the Department has some material to indicate the lawyer's involvement in alleged tax evasion, it cannot take such steps against him.
Case title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4853/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.”
GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court
Case title: Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6768/2023
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled. In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.
In this backdrop a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “When the GST registration itself has been cancelled in 2018, obviously, no refund can be granted till the said GST registration of the Petitioner is restored.”
Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4781/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “While the purpose behind Section 73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by which an adjudication order has to be issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is to ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner…the expression 'three months' has to be reckoned and interpreted as three calendar months and not as 90 days.”
Case title: Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10392/2025
The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.
Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] where it was held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act.
Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11906/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.
Though the trader sought to contend that reply could not be filed as he is not a frequent visitor to the GST portal, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said, “It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal. The Petitioner was well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him and such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever.”
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Case no.: ITA 299/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus held that the Indian entity is not liable to deduct TDS in such cases.
The bench in this regard relied on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Incometax & Another (2021) where the Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is taxable in India.
Case title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025
The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.
Case title: M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2024
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over alleged import of counterfeit iPhones, stating that such imports not only affect brand owners but also adversely affect consumer welfare— as old and used products could get re-branded as new ones.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed, “Consumers in India may be made to pay more for used, second hand or counterfeit products under the impression that they are original branded products. Such imports also have an impact on the brand equity and goodwill of the original manufacturers in India.”
Case title: Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11626/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.
Stating that this approach reflects a “complete non-application of the mind”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain directed the Department to adjudicate both the issues afresh.
Case title: Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11815/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed that refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the two conditions – "(i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue."
Case title: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12487/2025
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a Muslim woman whose gold bangles were seized by the Customs Department on return from Mecca and were withheld despite an order of the Adjudicating Authority, directing release.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that merely because the Department plans to seek a review of the order for return, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, is not grounds to withhold the return of seized articles.
Case title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9139/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown. In the opinion of this Court, under such circumstances where the allegation of the Petitioner is that there is an impersonation of the Petitioner's credentials, the matter ought to be investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.”
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Naser Ali Mondal v The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/4157/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.”
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC
Case-Title: Commissioner State Taxes and anr. Vs M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be imposed by invoking provisions of the State Act in the absence of an express charging section. The Court held that the Central Act is a “self-contained code” and provides its own framework for imposition of penalties, which cannot be supplemented by state laws.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the petition challenging the absence of a penalty under Section 6 of the J&K Entry Tax Act, 2000, and underscored the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
Karnataka HC
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…
Kerala HC
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4274 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Madras HC
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.18560 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: W.P.No.30638 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No.340 of 2016
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Case Number: CWP-9172-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that failure to notify commissioner of partner's retirement makes former partner liable for firm's GST. Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017 extends the liability in case of partnership firm to its partners as well.
Justices Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma stated that “intimation of retirement of partner has to be given to the Commissioner by notice in writing and that in case, no such intimation is given within one month from the date of retirement, liability of such partner under first proviso shall continue until the date on which such intimation is received by the Commissioner.”
Patna HC
Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Sai Steel v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13163 of 2024
The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax under IGST Act.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the challenge made to an amendment brought in by the Transport Department by which a new category of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motor vehicle tax, taking it out from the previous category without qualifying it for the exemptions available under other categories.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell in the definitions under Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and once the type or class of vehicle was categorised further based on seating capacity/berth arrangement as per body types defined under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was within its right to categorize such vehicle for tax imposition.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/s Play House Motion Pictures Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20876 of 2016
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on transfer or assignment of copyright of film produced under copyright service.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether service tax can be levied on exhibition of films under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or demand can be confirmed against transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced by assessee under Copyright Service.
Case Title: M/s. Onmobile Global Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20430 of 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mobile value-added services to telephone service providers classified as online information database access and retrieval services (OIDAR), service tax applicable.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the Mobile Value-Added Services rendered by the assessee can be classified as 'Online Information Database Access and Retrieval Services' (OIDAR) as claimed by the Revenue or are they classifiable as 'Information Technology Software Services' (ITSS) as claimed by the assessee.
Drawback Not Allowed Where Refund Exceeds Market Value Of Goods: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 53962 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that drawback not allowed where refund exceeds market value of goods.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b), no drawback shall be allowed.
Cenvat Credit Can Be Availed On Sugar Cess Paid On Imported Raw Sugar: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s A B Sugar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 2696 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that cenvat credit can be availed on sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar or not.
Tribunal Has Inherent Authority To Stay Orders Detrimental To Revenue: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. SKOT India
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40893/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that tribunal has inherent authority to stay orders detrimental to revenue.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that “the power of taxation including its collection being an inherent attribute of sovereignty, the right of revenue to seek a stay of an order determinantal to the collection of taxes, cannot be lightly dismissed….……..we find force in the plea made by the revenue that Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also contains the power for grant of a stay against an order or its part. In any case such a power is inherent in the powers of the Tribunal.”
No Service Tax On Catering Services Provided To Educational Institutions: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Smt. Kala Kudal v. The Commissioner, Central Excise & GST, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51606 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax on catering services provided to educational institutions.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the catering services provided by the assessee to a School with hostel facility are covered under the exemption from payment of service tax given at serial no.9 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
Case Title: Lovely Das v. Addl/JCIT, Nashik
Case Number: I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income.
Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall be given to him for the year in which the income is shown.
Case Title: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Ward-1 (9) Ahmedabad
Case Number: ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime.
Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A. The legislative intent is further clarified by the subsequent amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which is prospective in nature and thereby reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year.
Revenue Cannot Enforce Optional Exemption Notification Without Assessee's Consent: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods v. M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52196 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue cannot enforce optional exemption notification without assessee's consent.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that once an exemption is claimed, the assessee will not get CENVAT credit and may lose some other benefits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the optional exemption notification should be applied even if the assessee does not opt for it or for even for period before it opts for it.
DRI Has Jurisdiction To Issue Show Cause Notice In Drawback Cases: CESTAT
Case Title: Manasa Impex Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 290/2009
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in drawback cases.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether DRI Officers have the jurisdiction to issue SCN under Section 75 of the Customs Act read with the relevant Rule.
Property Transfer Between Spouses Without Actual Consideration Not Taxable As Capital Gains: ITAT
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.957/Del/2025
The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that property transfer between spouses without actual consideration is not taxable as capital gains.
S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) were dealing with the issue arises out of addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, being consideration amount mentioned in conveyance deed, executed by late Sunil Kumar, as received, from his wife Bimila Devi, who was alleged purchaser.
Excise Duty Exemption Not Available On Industrial Sewing Machines With In-Built Motors: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Swarup Mechanical Works (Unit 1) v. Additional Director General (Adj.), Director General of GST Intelligence
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52049 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty exemption not available on industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (S. No. 15) and its successor Notification No. 1/2011CE dated 1.3.2011 (S. No. 97) on the manufacturing of industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Curtain Glass Affixed To Building Not Removable, Hence Not Liable To Central Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – II v. M/s AGV Alfag Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that curtain glass/ structural glazing affixed to building not removable, hence not liable to central excise duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the curtain glass fixed by the assessee in the form of works contract on the walls of buildings can be charged to central excise duty.
Wedding Gifts Can't Be Automatically Treated As 'Unexplained Income' Without Evidence: ITAT
Case Title: Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.779/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that wedding gifts can't be automatically treated as unexplained income without evidence.
Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) stated that the fact that marriage gifts were received prior to the date of marriage itself could not lead to the conclusion that the same are not genuine, when a complete lists of persons from whom the gifts were received was duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and no specific defect had been pointed out with respect to the lists of persons so furnished by the assessee.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Centre Publishes Income Tax Act 2025 In Official Gazette After Presidential Assent
The Ministry of Law and Justice today published the Income Tax Act, 2025, in the Official Gazette after it received the President's assent on Thursday.
The Act consolidates and amends the existing income tax law, replacing the Income Tax Act, 1961. It will come into effect from April 1, 2026.