SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From KoreaCause Title: M/S L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMSThe Supreme Court recently granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country...
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Allows Customs Duty Exemption To LG Electronics For Smart Watch Import From Korea
Cause Title: M/S L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
The Supreme Court recently granted relief to LG Electronics India from paying customs duty on imported 'G Watch W7' smartwatches from South Korea, holding that a certificate of origin from a country with which India has a full customs duty exemption agreement is sufficient to claim such exemption.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the LG Electronics appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) order, that declined LG's plea for seeking exemption from custom duty payment for imported watches reasoning that imported watches falls under CTH 8517 good's, which attracted a higher duty, and raised a demand along with penalties.
Cause Title: M/S. SHIV STEELS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy when the taxing statutes do not authorize the imposition of tax. It added that tax authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods by administrative sanction.
“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.”, the court observed.
Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja and connected cases
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2024
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), upholding the HC's view that failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962 entitles the person to release of the seized goods.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta further held that provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act does not stop the operation of Section 110(2), which mandates issuance of a show-cause notice within six months of the seizure.
Cause Title: M/S QUIPPO ENERGY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD – II
The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.19) held that converting imported gas-generating sets (Gensets) into containerized “Power Packs” by placing them in steel containers and fitting them with essential components amounts to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, making the final product liable to excise duty.
“The process of placing the Genset within the steel container and fitting that container with additional, integral components brings into existence a new, distinct, and marketable commodity. This process would thus amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Act, 1944. Consequently, the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured.”, the court held.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 389 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Once actual movement of goods as well as payment of tax by the respondent authorities have been proved by the petitioner to which no rebuttal has been brought on record at any stage, proceedings under section 74 of the Act cannot be justified.”
Bombay HC
Case Title: Molbio Diagnostics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.142 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs.
Case Title: Classic Legends Pvt Ltd. v. Assessment Unit & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14748 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S. Jamsandekar stated that …..the assessee/petitioner can be stated to be an “eligible assessee” only if there is a case of variation referred to in the said sub-section 1 and which arises as a consequence of the order passed by the TPO under sub-section 3 of Section 92CA. It is an admitted position that there was no variation in the income of the assessee by virtue of the order of the TPO…
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2166 OF 2018
The Bombay High Court has held that payments to consultant doctors are not salary. Hence, TDS is deductible under section 194J and not under section 192 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that there does not exist an employer-employee relationship between the assessee and consultant doctors, and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi HC
Case title: Mushlina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14324/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the Customs Department's regular non-appearance in an appeal preferred by an aggrieved traveller whose articles were confiscated at the airport. The passenger further faced consistent non-implementation of the relief orders passed by the Appellate Authority. The court also allowed the release of the articles while upholding the order of the appellate authority.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further noted that in cases where the Department prefers revision against the appellate order, like in this case, it does not keep the traveller in the loop, making them wait endlessly.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27926/2025
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to pass an ex-parte order staying the guideline dated September 9 issued by the Union of India mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).
Justice B M Shyam Prasad refused the ex parte interim order on the petition filed by Kitchen and Home Products Company, TTK Prestige Limited. The company has approached the court seeking to quash the guideline.
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
Rajasthan HC
Title: M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.
Case Title: Shree Arihant Oil and General Mills v. Union Of India
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2932/2023
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed Point No. 2 of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, restricting ITC claims on the inverted duty structure prior to 18.07.2022.
The bench, consisting of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Sangeeta Sharma, stated that if the impugned clarification is tested on the anvil of reasonableness, it falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the right to claim refund of Input Tax Credit of the input tax on inverted duty structure has been denied with effect from 18.07.2022 only.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Pradeep Jeyavelu v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that sale proceeds of a minor's property share deposited under court order are excluded from father's taxable income.
S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) held that the assessee cannot decide the utilization of his minor daughter's share as it is deposited as per Court's order and it is impossible to club the same in the assessee's (father) hand.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sood v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), CGST- Delhi
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51127 OF 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that compensation for breach of agreement to sell land is not taxable as declared service U/S 66E(e) of the Finance Act.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the amount of Rs. 4.5 crores each received by the assessee from the land owners is compensation for the reneging on the agreement to sell. It does not fall under section 66E(e) and is not a declared service.