SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Issues Notice To IndiGo On Plea Of Customs Dept & GST Council Against Ruling On IGST Exemption For Imported PartsCase : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation LtdCase no.: Diary No. 49140-2025The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the...
SUPREME COURT
Case : Principal Commissioner of Customs Acc (Import) and others v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd
Case no.: Diary No. 49140-2025
The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from IndiGo's parent company, InterGlobe Aviation, on a petition filed by the Customs Department challenging a Delhi High Court ruling that exempted the airline from paying Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported aircraft parts that were repaired and serviced abroad.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to InterGlobe Aviation while hearing the department's plea against the March 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed a portion of a customs notification that mandated IGST payment on the import of repaired aircraft engines and components.
Cause Title: M/S. ARISTO PRINTERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW, U.P.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) held that the ink and chemicals used in printing the lottery tickets is a taxable item under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (“Act”).
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by an assessee, who is engaged in the business of printing lottery tickets and had been taxed on the value of ink and chemicals used in the printing process. While the Appellate Authority and Tribunal set aside the levy holding these materials were consumed rather than a transferrable good, the High Court restored the tax leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Limited Versus Union Of India Min.Of Finance Dept.Of Revenue Thru.Secy.Andors
Case no.: WRIT - C No. - 16125 of 2018
While dealing with a writ petition for refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), the Allahabad High Court has held that when the documents for TDS are provided by the assesee, the Assessing Officer must process the refund and cannot delay payment of refund in genuine cases.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar held, “a taxpayer should not be left at the mercy of an Assessing Officer who chooses to delay the payment of genuine refunds. Furthermore, as long as the assessee is able to provide documents proving that tax has been deducted at source, the same has to be accepted by the Assessing Officer, who cannot insist that the amount match the figures in Form 26AS. It is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the amounts provided by the assessee through the proof of Form 16A.”
Bombay HC
Case Title: Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court has held that pre-show cause notice consultation is not an empty formality; mandatory before the show cause notice (SCN) in demands above Rs. 50 lakhs. The question before Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna was whether a pre-consultation notice would be mandatory before issuing show cause notices where the tax demand exceeds Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The bench opined that ….The requirement of a pre-consultative process cannot be dismissed as some empty formality. The master circular and the Circular of 19 November 2020 style this requirement as mandatory in cases where the tax demand exceeds Rs 50 lakhs, unless, of course, the case falls in any of the exceptions. Such circulars bind the Department…
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Asks GST Appellate Tribunal To Examine 'Profiteering' Allegations Against Tata Play
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14422/2022
The Delhi High Court recently asked the GST Appellate Tribunal to re-look into the profiteering allegations levelled against DTH services provider Tata Play.
The direction was made by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain while dealing with the company's appeal against the show cause notice and consequential order passed against it by the erstwhile National AntiProfiteering Authority (NAPA).
Case title: Megha Engineering And Infrastructure Ltd v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3479/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that the Finance Act 2021, which retrospectively abolished the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), responsible for enabling compromise between the state and its tax payers, cannot create a void. For context, the Finance Act 2021 envisaged replacing the ITSC with a body known as the Interim Board of Settlements from 01.02.2021. However, the Act came into force on 01.04.2021.
Thus, the question before the Court was whether settlement applications made in the interregnum, at which point there was no amendment of the statute, can be denied acceptance/processing by way of a retrospective amendment.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Anuradha Misra
Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 506/2019
The Delhi High Court has dropped the civil contempt proceedings initiated against a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (now retired) six years ago, for alleged wilful disobedience of its order to give reasons for insisting an assessee to deposit 20% demand in appeal.
The proceedings were initiated suo moto in 2019 on a prima facie opinion but on a closer scrutiny, Justice Vikas Mahajan now found that the Respondent's order though brief, was not bereft of reasons.
Case title: Purshottam Ray v. Principal Commissioner Of CGST & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15118/2025
In order to avoid duplication of GST cases, the Delhi High Court has asked its Registry to add a new field for filing of writ petitions to record DIN (Document Identification Number) and date of order being challenged.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction on observing that multiple writ petitions were being filed challenging same impugned orders, especially in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC (Input Tax Credit).
Gauhati HC
Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹19.5 Crore GST Notice Against PepsiCo
Case Title: M/S. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
Case Number: WP(C)/6960/2023
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed a ₹19.5 crore show cause notice (SCN) issued to food and beverage giant PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under the CGST Act, ruling that the GST department failed to comply with the mandatory process of return scrutiny before initiating tax demand proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the SCN could not have been issued without providing PepsiCo an opportunity to explain its stance.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Dr. K.M. Ashik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO.200 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court held that the assessee is free to challenge the cash credit addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in remand proceedings; the tribunal's directions are not binding.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that the observation made by the Tribunal is not to be taken as a positive-binding direction on the assessing authority after the remand. An assessment with reference to the provisions of Section 68 is required to be made only when the assessee has no explanation as regards the cash credits in his books of accounts. In the case at hand, the appellant-assessee seems to have offered explanations, with reference to its dealings with the Company, which are more or less business transactions between parties.
Case Title: M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16709 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has held that printing digital images/letters on paper constitutes services, and attracts 18% GST not 12%. The question before the bench was to determine whether the assessee's printing activities ie. converting the figures, letters, photographs etc., in a digital form, into physical format by printing it on paper were liable to GST at 12% or 18%.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. examined both HSN Code 4911 and SCN 998386 and noted that HSN Code 4911 mainly refers to the supply of goods in the form of printed materials, whereas, the SCN 998386 refers to the photographic and videographic processing services, where the printing of images from film or digital media is specifically included therein.
Madras HC
Case Title: P. Balasubramaniam v. The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
Case Number: W.A.Nos.12 and 57 of 2023
The Madras High Court stated that the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) penalty under Section 50 is not applicable for export shortfall below 10%; the exporter can write off unrealised bills.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that even otherwise, since Section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is to be read along with Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as admittedly the Appellants/Exporters had failed to realize approximately 5.45% of the export proceeds.
Rajasthan HC
Title: Murliwala Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors.
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily on the Revenue Department for being “rigid and adamant” to transfer the case of the petitioner from Udaipur to Delhi under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the coordinate bench's earlier decision that quashed the same order.
The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Ravi Chirania stated that when the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were pending for more than 6 years, the department must be more concerned with examining and deciding the issue as per law, instead of making the assessee a “shuttlecock”.
CESTAT Quashes ₹56.47 Crore Customs Duty Demand On Dish TV Over Smart Card Classification
Case Name: Videocon D2H Limited/Dish TV v Additional Director General, DRI
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51007 OF 2020
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently set aside a ₹56.47 crore customs duty demand against Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Ltd) in a dispute over the classification of imported smart cards.
A coram of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Technical Member P V Subba Rao quashed an order dated April 28, 2020, passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI.
Case Title: M/s Professional Examination Board v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52205 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the government examination board is not liable to service tax on examination fees collected from candidates.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) stated that the examination fees collected from the candidates appearing for the examination being conducted by the appellant/assessee cannot be considered as consideration for the supply of manpower recruitment and supply services to the state government departments.
Case Title: M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that IRCTC's (Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd.) licensing for the operation of food plazas is not liable to service tax under 'renting of immovable property'.
The Tribunal observed that the agreement was purely related to the transaction of business whereby the assessee was actually performing the activity of operation of catering and was not providing any service of renting of immovable property. The terms of the agreement make it abundantly clear as to what is the true and actual purpose of the agreement and the relationship between the parties.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CJI BR Gavai on Wednesday said that the eligibility criteria for appointment of senior practitioners at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be timely, where their experience can be applied effectively and not at the very end of their careers.
Underscoring that the appointment procedures at ITAT must remain transparent, CJI said: “Eligibility criteria should be adapted to attract senior practitioners at a point in their careers where their experience can be effectively applied, rather than deferring appointments to the very end of their professional lives.”