SUPREME COURTAutomobile Dealers Association Moves Supreme Court Over Compensation Cess Lapse After GST 2.0 Reforms, Claims Loss Of Rs.2500 CrCase Title: FEDERATION OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIADiary No. 60671/2025The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: FEDERATION OF AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Diary No. 60671/2025
The Federation of Automobile Dealers Association has moved the Supreme Court seeking relief related to compensation cess input tax credit worth Rs.2500 crores, which stands locked in dealers ledgers as a consequence of recent revision in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
Briefly put, a notification issued on September 17 scrapped the compensation cess on motor vehicles. This was done, as per the FADA, "without providing any transitional or refund mechanism". Therefore, dealers' accumulated compensation cess lapsed on September 22 and may not be carried forward.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ramelex Private Ltd.
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot rely solely on Sales Tax Department Data for an income tax addition without granting cross-examination.
Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe stated that, "when the VAT assessment was pending adjudication, merely relying on the information of the Sales Tax Department without granting an opportunity to the Assessee to even cross-examine the hawala purchasers to confirm the purchases from them violated the basic facts of law amenating to unfairness and breach of the principles of natural justice in making the addition of Rs.2,05,74,750/- as bogus purchases in hands of the Assessee."
̌Case Title: Balaji Landmarks LLP Eartwhile v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16638 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee should not be penalised for the delay in filing the return caused by the chartered accountant's belated advice. The bench noted that the delay is not due to any negligence on the part of the assessee, but to inadequate advice by the Chartered Accountant, a fact admitted by him in his affidavit.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar opined that the Petitioner ought not to be put to a considerable disadvantage as a result of belated advice given to it by the Chartered Accountant, especially when the issue that was being grappled with is fairly complex and for which there were no well-settled judicial precedents at the relevant time.
Delhi HC
Case title: Amit Kumar Basau & Anr. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 13 (Special Zone) Zone 12 Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15327/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has an embargo on an un-registered firm from filing a suit or any proceeding for enforcement of a right. However, the exceptions to the said provision are carved out in Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar & Anr. (2000).”
Case title: Nitco Logistics Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Case no.: CUSAA 56/2024
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Customs Housing Agent is responsible for the actions of its employees and it must exercise due diligence in supervising their activities.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that a CHA may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of its employee but, the punishment in that regard has to be proportionate.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 v. M/S Agroha Fincap Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 60/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Commissioner's order granting sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for reopening assessment after four years of the relevant Assessment Year (AY) can be in the words— “Yes, I am convinced”.
Section 151(1) of the Act categorically provides that no notice for reassessment shall be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer (AO), after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY, unless the Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Renting/Leasing Residential Premises For Use As Residence Exempt From GST: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mr. Gurdev Raj Kumar v. Collector Of Stamps (Government Of Nct Of Delhi)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1463/2021
The Delhi High Court has held that GST cannot be levied on renting/ leasing of residential premises for use as residence.
Justice Sachin Datta clarified thus while dealing with a plea to quash an order passed by the Collector of Stamps directing the petitioner to pay allegedly deficient stamp duty on a lease deed executed with a private company, in respect of a residential property in city's Vasant Vihar area.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Dhirghat Hardware Stores and Anr. v. The Union of India and 3 ors.
Case Number: WP(C)/5944/2025
The Gauhati High Court has held that GST Registration can be restored even after expiry of the revocation period if the assessee complies with Rule 22(4) CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax Rules), 2017 requirements.
The Single Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, opined that if the assessee submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the assessee for restoration of GST registration and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the assessee.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT
Case Number: ITA NO.51 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the deduction of bad debts. It allows the taxpayer to claim a deduction for bad debts that have been written off in the books of accounts during the previous financial year.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon, after referring to the case of Vijaya Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, opined that there is no requirement for the individual debtor's account to be closed for claiming a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TA NO. 55 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be invoked where the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to address a core issue in the assessment order.
The bench opined that the main issue does not appear to have been addressed by the assessing authority while issuing an order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Since the assessment order does not appear to have addressed the issue with reference to the competing provisions, exercise of the power under Section 263 of the Act was justified.
Case : Vinod Mukundan and others v. Union of India and others
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 36636/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has granted interim relief to retired employees of the Union Bank by allowing them to renew their group health insurance policies without paying the 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the premium.
The Court passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Vinod Mukundan and others, including the All India Union Bank Pensioners & Retirees Federation, challenging the levy of 18% GST on group health insurance policies. While the GST levy on individual health insurance has been completely waived off with effect from September 22, group health insurance policies have not been exempted from GST. The petitioners challenged this as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Madhya Pradesh HC
MP High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Tobacco Company For Stalling GST Proceedings
Case Title: Elora Tobacco Company v Union of India
Case no.: WP-14694-2025
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed ₹2 lakh costs on an Indore-based tobacco company for attempting to stall the proceedings initiated against it by the GST authorities.
The company came came under the scanner of the Director General of GST Intelligence back in May 2020, following an investigation into large-scale tax evasion in the pan masala and tobacco industry in Indore.
Madras HC
Case Title: M/s. ACS Shipping & Logistics v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: W.P(MD)No.4416 of 2022
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.
The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed with knowledge in this regard, that would not count for the purpose of limitation. It is the date of receipt of the offence report that is material. Such an interpretation alone would be in consonance with the text of Regulation 17."
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
Case Title: National Association of Container Freight Stations v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP No. 11222 of 2022
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act. "It is not known as to where the 1st respondent gets the power and jurisdiction to issue a Public Notice directing the custodians not to collect GST. This direction given by the 1st respondent certainly does not fall within the domain of the customs authorities."
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/s Lasco Chemie Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50208 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that crowd-sourced information available on platforms like Wikipedia cannot be relied upon to fasten tax liability on the assessee.
The Tribunal opined that Wikipedia is an open source information available online and anyone can write about the topic and anyone else can edit it. Thereafter, somebody else can further edit it. It is not the opinion of any one expert but is only crowd-sourced information.
Advance Received Towards Sale Of Land Not Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Suwalka & Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52874 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount of advance received by the assessee with respect to the sale of land is out of the scope of applicability of the provisions of the Finance Act, and hence, no service tax is leviable.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) stated that the assessee has successfully established that the activity undertaken with reference to the amount in question pertains to the sale of immovable property, and as such, he was not liable to pay any service tax on the amount received as an advance towards that sale.
Mumbai ITAT Quashes ₹445 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment Against Netflix India
Case title: Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 23(1), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No.6857/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has recently set aside a Rs 445 crore transfer pricing adjustment on Netflix India for financial year 2021-22, rejecting the Revenue's claim that the company, as a licensee of its streamed content, owed higher taxes.
The authorities had imposed the tax because they treated Netflix India, the Indian arm of US-based streaming giant Netflix, as a licensee of Netflix US's intellectual property. They claimed the company owed deemed royalty and license fees for using the content library and proprietary streaming technology in India, far higher than Netflix India's declared fixed profit of just 1.36% on Indian sales.
Case Title: Royal Blankets v. Principal Commissioner, Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51721 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an Excel sheet recovered from the email account of the assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that Section 138C applies only when the document is printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty Demand Against Wipro Over Tamil Nadu Govt's Free Laptop Scheme
Case Title: Wipro Ltd.v The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 40803 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai on Wednesday quashed the excise department's demand for additional duty from Wipro Ltd., ruling that the company's supply of laptops to the Tamil Nadu government for free distribution to students cannot be treated as a commercial sale and therefore cannot be taxed at retail price.
A two-member bench comprising Judicial Member P Dinesha and Technical Member M Ajit Kumar said the case was covered by an earlier decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the PG Electroplast matter where it was held that that the free distribution of colour TVs to poorer sections on behalf of the government can't be called a commercial activity.
Case Title: M/s. Ericsson India Private Limited v. Additional Director General
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50439 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that royalty paid for technical know-how is not a 'condition of sale' merely because it is included in the value of imported goods.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemembika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that both the Technical Agreements relate to transfer of technical know-how, amongst others, in the form of design sheets detailing manufacturing methods and specifications of raw materials for all the components used in the manufacture/assemble or the products and the payment on royalty is not a condition of sale of imported goods and in fact relates to post import activities.
SSI Exemption Can't Be Denied Merely For Using Common/Assigned Brand Names: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Aashish Enterprises v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 42303 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that SSI (Small Scale Industry) Exemption can't be denied merely for using common/assigned brand names.
The Tribunal opined that once a brand name is legally assigned or transferred, the SSI unit becomes the “owner” of the brand. Therefore, it is no longer the “brand name of another person,” and the restriction in Condition No. 4 of Notification No. 8/2003-CE does not apply.
Case Title: M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41366 & 41367 of 2016
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that variable 'P' under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, refers only to common credit, not total credit, prior to 01.04.2016.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether, for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2014, the variable “P” in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would denote total credit or common credit.
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2193/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an independent enquiry or verification by the department is mandatory before treating charitable donations as involuntary.
George George K (Vice President) stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) treated the donations as not voluntary donation and sustained the addition made by the AO. The FAA has not carried out any independent enquiry or verification to ascertain whether donations are voluntary or not. The findings of the FAA appear to rest on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures, rather than on any concrete material or evidence.
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the FOB (Free On Board) value determined between the parties is protected by privity of contract, and it cannot be modified by a stranger to the contract.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) opined that FOB value is the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”. The FOB value of the individual components declared by the assessee, therefore, could not have been rejected.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
CBDT Extends Deadlines For Filing Of Income Tax Return In Audit Cases For A.Y. 2025-26
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of furnishing of the Return of Income and tax audit reports for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2025-26.
The revised due dates for submitting audit reports and Income Tax Returns are November 10, 2025 and December 10, 2025, respectively.