Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.Under Section 73, SCN is issued to an assessee for determination of tax not paid or short paid. The Proper Officer is required...

GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled.In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.In this backdrop a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“When the GST registration itself has been cancelled in...

Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner.During the hearing,...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: July 28 - August 03, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCBurden To Prove That Best Assessment By Income Tax Authorities Is Perverse Is On Assesee: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income TaxCase no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on...

S.74 CGST Act | Consolidated SCN For Multiple Financial Years Necessary To Establish Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most...

Stock Exchange & Banking Channels Cannot Mask Sham Transactions Carried Out Through Bogus Capital Loss Claim Companies: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies. Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices...

Tax Monthly Digest: July 2025

SUPREME COURTStem Cell Banking Services Qualify As "Healthcare Services" In Service Tax Exemption Notification : Supreme CourtCase : M/S. STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - IIICase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3816-3817 OF 2025The Supreme Court held that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and...

Mere Incorporation Of Investing Companies Under Companies Act Not Enough To Prove Genuineness Of Share Transactions: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions. The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not...

Delhi High Court Reprimands GST Dept For Raiding Lawyer's Office, Seizing Computer Over Client's Tax Case

The Delhi High Court has pulled up the GST Department for harassing a tax lawyer, by raiding his offices and seizing his files and electronic gadgets, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that unless the Department has some material to indicate the lawyer's involvement in alleged tax evasion, it...

[CGST Act] Penalty Is An 'Additional Tax', Cannot Be Levied Under State Act Without 'Charging Provision': J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be imposed by invoking provisions of the State Act in the absence of an express charging section.The Court held that the Central Act is a “self-contained code” and provides its own framework for imposition of penalties, which cannot be supplemented by state laws.A bench headed...

Income Tax | Sale Proceeds Of One House Used For Purchasing Multiple Residential Houses Qualifies For Exemption U/S 54(1): Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses, would qualify for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act. The issue before the bench was whether Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act allows the Assessee to set off the purchase cost of more than one residential units against the capital gains earned...

Mobile Value-Added Services To Telephone Service Providers Classified As OIDAR; Service Tax Applicable: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mobile value-added services to telephone service providers classified as online information database access and retrieval services (OIDAR), service tax applicable. Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether...