SUPREME COURTITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme CourtCase Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTDCase Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely...
SUPREME COURT
ITC Cannot Be Denied To Bona Fide Purchasers If Seller Defaults On Tax Payment : Supreme Court
Case Title: THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI vs M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).2042-2047/2015
The Supreme Court recently held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods purchased from registered dealers cannot be denied to bona fide purchasers merely because the seller failed to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) with the government.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that there was no infirmity in the order of Delhi High Court granting credit to the respondent, a bonafide purchaser.
“We do not find a good reason to interfere with the order of the High Court directing for grant of ITC benefit after due verification.,” while dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Trade and Tax Department.
Case : Pride Foramer S.A. v Commissioner of Income Tax
The Supreme Court has clarified that under the Income Tax Act, a non-resident company can be taxed in India on income that accrues or arises from a business connection within the country, even if it does not maintain a permanent office or physical establishment here.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, in its judgment examined the scope of Sections 4, 5(2), and 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the statute does not make it mandatory for a non-resident assessee to have a “permanent establishment” in India to be considered as carrying on business in the country. The Court explained that what determines tax liability is whether the income has accrued or arisen, directly or indirectly, through any business connection in India.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title: Archroma International (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.11226 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the dispute resolution panel (DRP) directions; assessment completed beyond Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time limit is invalid.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that the Deputy Commissioner cannot act beyond the mandate of Section 144 (C) (13) and also contrary to the directions given by the DRP in sub-section (5) of Section 144 (C) of the Act. The reason being, Section 144(C)(13) mandates that the Deputy Commissioner ought to complete the assessment in conformity with the direction of the DRP, that too within the strict timelines. Further, Section 144 C (10) makes a clear provision that the directions of the DRP are binding on the Assessing Officer.
Information Regarding GST Returns Of Company Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Adarsh Gautam Pimpare vs State of Maharashtra
Case no.: Writ Petition 11135 of 2025
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 14) held that a company's Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns filing cannot be disclosed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.
Sitting at Aurangabad bench, single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar noted that section 158(1) of the GST Act prohibits disclosure of information of GST returns to third parties and that section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act too exempts certain information from being made public unless the information officer is satisfied that the said information must be disclosed as a public interest is involved.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 1235 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.
The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bharat Aluminum Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WA No. 736 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that the ITC is not admissible on electricity supplied to a township maintained by Bharat Aluminium.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is not admissible on the electricity supplied to the township maintained by Bharat Aluminium/appellant. This is because such supply cannot be said to have been made in the course or furtherance of the appellant's business, as contemplated under Sections 2(17) and 16(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Delhi HC
Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue's Demand Against Casio India In Transfer Pricing Case
Case Name: PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 v CASIO INDIA COMPANY PVT. LTD
Case Number: ITA 505/2025
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a transfer pricing demand against Casio India, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Japanese watchmaker, related to advertising, marketing and promotion expenses for the assessment year 2017-18
The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar ruled that the issue had already been settled in Casio's favour in previous years and therefore requires similar treatment.
Gujarat HC
Income Tax | Manual Filing Of Appeal By NRI Valid For DTVSV Scheme Benefits: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Tejal Mayur Rao v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7839 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court held that the manual filing of an appeal by an NRI is valid for DTVSV (Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024) Scheme Benefits.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi were addressing the case where the petitioner/assessee has challenged the communication issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the declaration made by the assessee under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 ('DTVSV Scheme, 2024'), is rejected on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee was invalid.
Karnataka HC
SARFAESI Charge Created Before GST Charge Takes Precedence Over It: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 103730 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that a SARFAESI charge created prior in time takes precedence over a GST Charge.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that if there is a conflict between the GST Act and the SARFAESI Act (or the RDB Act), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa.
Mens Rea Not Prerequisite For Imposing Penalty U/S 117 Of Customs Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 7 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court held that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind stated that a plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a requirement of mens rea into the provision would amount to rewriting the statute, which is impermissible. Since Section 117, in its plain language, does not indicate the necessity of mens rea. The contrary finding recorded by the CESTAT is incorrect and unsustainable.
TRIBUNALS
Incorrect Declaration In Bill Of Entry Attracts Penalty U/S 114AA Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Nitin Khandelwal v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50914 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that imports and filing of the Bill of Entry are transactions of business under the Customs Act. Section 114AA would squarely apply to those transactions. In this case, the importer filed a Bill of Entry to clear goods imported by it and self-assessed the duty payable on them.
Case Title: M/s Simran Exports v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50268 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that proceedings under Rule 16/16A Drawback Rules are merely execution proceedings; cannot modify value in shipping bills.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the proceedings to recover the drawback under Rules 16/16A of the Drawback Rules are in the nature of execution proceedings, and they cannot be used to modify the value or any other parameter in the Shipping Bills.
Case Title: M/s.Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.52667 of 2015
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently held that the arrangement between Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) and private vendors for operating Food Plazas at railway premises does not amount to 'renting of immovable property' and, thus, does not attract service tax under that category.
A two-member coram comprising Judicial Member Binu Tamta and Technical Member P V Subba Rao held that the agreements were not lease transactions but business arrangements based on revenue sharing.
Case Title: M/s. Dynamic Infratech v. Commissioner of Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20455 of 2023
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a show cause notice cannot be issued solely based on voluntary disclosure by the assessee under the SVLDRS Scheme [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019].
The bench, consisting of P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member), agreed with the Commissioner that even though documents were placed before the authorities concerned, the original authority confirmed the demand only based on the SVLDRS Form-1 filed by the assessee, which is non-existent as per Clause 2(c) of Section 129 of the SVLDR Scheme.
Assessment Order Not Void Solely Because It Was Passed in Deceased's Name: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Late Shri Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera v ITO, Kurukshetra
Case Number: ITA No. 1151/Chd/ 2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, recently held that an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), reassessing the income tax liability of an assessee, is not invalid merely because it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal noted that since the appeal itself was filed under the deceased's name, the order cannot be quashed on that ground alone.
Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed, “since the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh and not in the name of his legal heir, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be vitiated merely because it was passed in the name of the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the order of the CIT(A) were to be treated as erroneous for this reason, even in that eventuality the order of the Assessing Officer would remain undisturbed and would continue to operate against the assessee”.
Case no.: Advance Ruling No. 37/ARA/2025
The Authority for Advance Ruling of Tamil Nadu recently held that Minimum Guaranteed Off-take (MGO) charges collected by ONGC from GAIL for short-lifting natural gas are not liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST).
In a clarification key for the oil and gas sector, the authority ruled that these charges are in the nature of liquidated damages for breach of contract and do not constitute a taxable “supply” under GST law.