HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCMere Absence Of Activity At Principal Place Of Business Doesn't Mean Invoices Issued To Assessee Are Fake: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed...
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the invoices issued in favour of such assessee are fake.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and seeking release of the goods confiscated under Section 129(1)(a) by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”
Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”
Case Title: M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: Income Tax Appeal No. 407 of 2003
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an appeal filed by M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., which had made a provision for doubtful debts in its profit and loss account for the Assessment Year 1997–98.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act.
The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.
“Where such notice is served on a person, he can prove to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the notice that the money demanded or any part thereof was not due to the person in default or that he did not hold any money for or on account of the person in default at the time the notice was served on him nor is the money demanded or any part thereof, likely to become due to the said person or be held for or on account of such person” opined the bench.
GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15536 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12528 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/10/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Case Number: ITAT/215/2024
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Delhi HC
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9269/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
Jammu & Kashmir HC
Case-Title: IQBAL MUBARIK vs UT of J&K
Case no.: WP(C) No. 1154/2024
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the Department of Home is liable to reimburse GST in addition to the fixed rent to hotel owners whose accommodations have been requisitioned for housing security forces. The petitioner had filed the petition seeking a direction that the tax amount be paid or reimbursed separately by the Home Department over and above the fixed rent.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Parihar and Sanjeev Kumar observed that while the rental rates were fixed much earlier, the introduction of GST makes it mandatory for hoteliers to register under the Act and pay tax on the rental income.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15933 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17312 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18501 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.12516 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Madras HC
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
TRIBUNALS
Demand U/S 73A Of Finance Act Unsustainable Without Proof Of Service Tax Collection: CESTAT
Case Title: Taj Sats Air Catering Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51544 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that demand under Section 73A Of Finance Act unsustainable without proof of service tax collection.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the invoice does not indicate any service tax collection by the assessee. The assessee had merely collected VAT and AAI levy from their clients, and no amount representing Service tax has been collected. Consequently, the demand under Section 73A cannot be sustained in respect of 5 of the Show Cause Notices issued to the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Achiever International v. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi II
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 248 of 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods not prohibited under foreign trade policy still require valid IEC (Importer Exporter Codes), import using bogus codes is impermissible.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that there is nothing in the FTDR Act (The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which provides for any IEC holder to lend his IEC to somebody else or for anyone to import goods borrowing someone else's IEC.
No Service Tax On 'Upfront Fee' Received By DMRC From Customers Under Concession Agreement: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55198 of 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on 'upfront fee' received by DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) from customers under concession agreement.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the “upfront fee” received by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. from various customers under the Concession Agreements entered prior to 1.7.2010 is exigible to service tax on or after 1.7.2010 under “Renting of Immovable Property Services”.
Service Tax To Be Paid By Distributor, Not By Theatre Owner For Film Screening: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M2K Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, (Delhi West)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54027 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax has to be paid by the distributor under “Copy Right Service” for transfer of right by licence to screen the film in the theatre of the owner.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”. Moreover, the element of consideration, i.e. the quid pro quo for services, which is a necessary ingredient of any taxable service is absent. The revenue has not been able to establish the service provider and service recipient relationship between the assessee and the distributor. Consequently, no service tax can be levied on the assessee.”
Customs Act | Mere Purchase Of Gold Without Bill Not Enough To Prove Gold Smuggling: CESTAT
Case Title: Rajesh Sehgal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Preventive, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51467 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere purchase of gold without bill not enough to prove gold smuggling.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that the mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. The order imposing penalty on the appellants and confiscating their money is not sustainable.
Case Title: M/s Environment Planning & Coordination Organization v. The Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52116 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that CENVAT Credit can't be claimed on note sheets and sanction orders and required valid documents with mandatory details.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that it is not open to the assessee to take CENVAT credit on the basis of note sheets or sanction orders or invoices which do not have the essential details. The assessee could take CENVAT credit only on the strength of proper and valid documents.
No Service Tax On Target-Based Discounts From Maruti Suzuki To Dealers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Vipul Motors Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52943 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on target-based discounts from Maruti Suzuki to dealers.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the incentives/ discounts received by the dealers of car manufacturer were not taxable under Auxiliary Service (BAS), as they were the part of a business transaction on a principle-to-principle basis.
Customs | Counter Vailing Duty Not Applicable On Import Of Pan Masala Processing Machines: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51630 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) is not applicable on import of pan masala processing machines.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the assessee is the manufacture of the PanMasala and has imported the machines for cutting / grinding / sorting of Areca Nuts (Supari/seed), the raw material of the Pan Masala. From the description of the three of the machines it becomes apparently clear that assessee has imported machines for carrying out such functions only as are specifically mentioned under CTH 8437200.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that S.148 Income Tax notice issued after 31.03.2021 under old regime invalid despite TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020] extension.
George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that due to COVID-19, the Government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), extending time limits. Accordingly, the time available for the Department to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime, falling during the period from 20.03.2020 till 31.03.2021, were extended till 30.06.2021.