HIGH COURTSDelhi High CourtDelhi High Court Grants Relief To Lufthansa Airlines, Sets Aside Revenue's Order Denying 'Nil' TDS CertificateCase title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for...
HIGH COURTS
Delhi High Court
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.
In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.
Case title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4004/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials.
“...if a complaint was received in this manner, the CCTV footage ought to be preserved immediately as the same is available only for 30 days. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the Petitioner at the time of departure could also have been preserved to determine whether the Petitioner was wearing a gold kada or not at the time of departure. Therefore, in such cases, immediate action ought to be taken when such a complaint is received,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court stated that inflating contract figures and complaining that tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, amounts to defrauding state.
“Claiming higher contract amount by inflated figures and thereafter complaining that the Tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, virtually amounts to defrauding the State, in two-ways. Such an assessee does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court,” stated the Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar.
Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Case Number: T.C.(A).No.493 of 2013
The Madras High Court while referring to sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD). Nos. 3938 to 3942 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/s Fortune Infovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 11431/2018
Rajasthan High Court set aside prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the petitioner-company whose business activity related to e-commerce transactions, and owing to delay on part of the companies like Amazon, Naaptol, Ebay, etc. in submitting the bills, the petitioner got delayed by almost 10 months in submitting the deducted TDS.
The division bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma and Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that since the TDS was deposited voluntarily by the petitioner, that too along with interest for delay, no case was made out against the petitioner-company.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Kotdwar Steel Limited v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner Kotdwar
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 47 Of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken.
“The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, And CGST Commissionerate
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 52154 Of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is no exemption on the articles described as pendants as the jewellery is not distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “The contention of the assessee that articles of jewellery do not cover pendant of 24 CARAT within its purview is misleading and unsustainable as nowhere in the Chapter Note or the Heading, the jewellery is distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
Case Title: Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 86917 of 2016
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim for service tax cannot be claimed on transactions took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India.
The Bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) has observed that, “The said claim for refund is in respect of service tax paid by the assessee in respect of transactions that took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India and, therefore, that service tax was not payable.”
Case Title: East West Fright Carriers Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86361 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that failure to file declaration may be considered as a technical irregularity if customs authorities failed to notice it.
“There is no doubt that the declaration had to be made and, the deployment of 'abundant caution' in the instructions notwithstanding, it would appear that the said declaration was of not of insignificance in the procedure prescribed under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and handling of drawback claims but it has not been shown that customs broker had not advised the client about the documentation and that non-compliance thereof was not to be taken thereof by the proper officer except upon reporting by the broker” stated the Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and CJ Mathew (Technical Member).
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 27th March 2025 vide Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST has given clarification on various issues related to availment of benefit of Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017.
Based on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 53rd and 54th meetings, a new section 128A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 164 has been inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1st November 2024 to provide for waiver of interest or penalty or both relating to demands raised under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Bengaluru civic body, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has introduced 'garbage tax' under which the residents of Bengaluru have to pay a “solid waste management user” fee from 1st April, 2025.
The initiative has been taken by the government to improve the waste collection and disposal across the city. The government aims to generate Rs. 685 crores through this initiative in the current fiscal year.
Pune Property Tax Bills for the financial year 2025-2026 has been delayed to 1st May due to the ongoing verification of PT-3 applications which has been submitted by the homeowners seeking a 40% concession on residential properties.
As per the state government regulations the property owners who reside in their own homes are entitled to a 40% concession on the property and to claim this benefit owners had to submit PT-3 forms.