Tax Monthly Digest: April 2025
Kapil Dhyani
3 May 2025 6:25 PM IST
SUPREME COURTDealers Cannot Claim Input Tax Credit For Purchases Linked To Exempt Sales Under UPVAT Act : Supreme CourtCase Title: NEHA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESHCase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6553 OF 2016Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: NEHA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6553 OF 2016
Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.
“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no facility for input tax credit shall be allowed to a dealer with respect to the purchase of any goods where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Act.”, the Court observed.
Case Title: The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution VERSUS B. Gunashekar & Another
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5200 OF 2025
In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court today (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department.
The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).
Case Title: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus COMBINED TRADERS
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2025
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeal, which challenged the High Court's decision of declaring Rule 17(2) as ultra vires due to inconsistency between the Central and State Laws. The reason being that the Rajasthan CST Rules allowed the cancellation of Form C if obtained fraudulently, however, the Central Rules (Registration and Turnover Rules, 1957) prescribe Form C but do not provide for its cancellation.
Case : Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Chandigarh vs V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt Ltd
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 13205/2025
The Supreme Court recently advised that the Commissioners of Income Tax should not randomly remand matters in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely by saying that the Assessing Officer was required to do more inquiries.
The Court said that to remand matters on the ground of inadequate inquiry by the AO, the Commissioner must record “abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and prejudice caused to revenue” is necessary.
Case Title: M/S OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI – II
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 129-130 OF 2011
The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as the test report used to justify the reclassification of the petrochemicals, which led to the higher duty.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1892 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of Rs.17,49,330/- with NOIDA. Petitioner pleaded that he filed his return under Section 39 of the GST Act. The tax deposited by the petitioner to NOIDA was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B due to mistake on part of NOIDA.
Case Title: M/S Solvi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1287 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the seller is a registered dealer at the time of transaction, no adverse inference can be drawn against the purchasing dealer based on the subsequent cancellation of seller's registration.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once the seller was registered at the time of the transaction in question, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the record shows that the registration of the selling dealer was cancelled retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 29.01.2020 and not from its inception which goes to show that the transaction between petitioner and seller was registered and having valid registration in his favour.”
Case Title: Amit Kumar Sethia (Deceased) v. State of U.P. and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 917 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not empower the authorities to make determination of tax against a dead person and recover the same his legal representatives.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.”
Case Title: Merino Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1406 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on Joint Commissioner SGST, Corporate Circle-1, Ghaziabad who had issued a show cause notice without specifying the date and time for personal hearing and had passed an order under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creating a demand of more than Rs. 5 crore ignoring the specific request for personal hearing made by the assesee.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “Innumerable cases have come before this Court where show cause notices have been issued and ex-parte assessments made after the cancellation of the GST registration of the firm, based on uploading of notices on the portal, without ensuring personal service of the notices.”
Claims Of GST Department Are Barred Once Resolution Plan Is Approved: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1716 of 2025
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, the Allahabad High Court has held that the claims of Goods and Service Tax Department are barred after the aproval of resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held, “In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process. The Supreme Court has categorically held the same as indicated above.”
Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is mandatory for the assesee to download the complete E-way Bill including Part-B of the E-way Bill for transactions after April 2018. Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,
“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/s Hari Shanker Transport v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow and another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 606 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that order under Section 75(6) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 must be self-contained and mere reference to previous show cause notices is not sufficient.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held, “The manner of passing of order dated 27.04.2024 falls foul of the requirements of Section 75(6) of the Act, which requires that 'the proper officer, in his order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision', the statutory requirements for passing an order by setting out relevant facts and basis for the decision are totally missing from the order dated 27.04.2024.”
Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1386 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the authority on verification has mentioned the details of the goods found and verified the correctness of the invoices and the goods in transit, it cannot be permitted to change the stand later and say that the goods were not in accordance with the invoice.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case title: Ravindra Muthavarapu v. The Superintendent Of Central Tax and Others
Case no.: WRIT PETITION Nos.17995, 17997, 18001, 18018, 18019 & 18024 of 2024
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Section 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 cannot be used by the Excise Department to recover its dues from the directors of a liquidated company. Section 88(3) states that the tax, interest or penalty of a private company, which has been wondup can be recovered from the directors of the company, subject to certain conditions, when such tax, penalty and interest is determined under the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Dr Justice K Manmadha Rao observed, “This can only mean that tax, penalty or interest which had been determined under the CGST Act, alone can be recovered from the directors of private company which are under liquidation, subject to the condition set out in Section 88(3) of the CGST Act.”
Bombay HC
Case Title: Technova Imaging Systems Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court stated that amalgamated company can adjust written down of assets of amalgamating companies and claim depreciation without central government's approval. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik stated,
“The Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that in view of insertion of Section 72A in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee (being the amalgamated company) not having obtained approval of the Central Government was not entitled to adjust the written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies on the basis of depreciation actually allowed to them and to claim depreciation on such adjusted written down value of the assets of the amalgamating companies.”
Case Title: Macrotech Developers Limited vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2016
Finding that the Petitioner had failed to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment of tax, the Bombay High Court ruled that the circuitous movement of funds through various companies located in tax havens had not been disclosed in the course of the original proceedings. The High Court therefore confirmed the reopening proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
A division bench of Justice Jitendra Jain and Justice M.S Sonak observed that “if based on subsequent information, there is a prima-facie material suggesting that the transaction of loan is nothing but the undisclosed funds of the Petitioner routed through various tax havens companies in the form of loan then the disclosure made in the course of the original assessment proceedings cannot be treated as full and true material disclosure for the purpose of the assessment”.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited v. DCIT Circle-1(1), Raipur, C.G.
Case Number: TAXC No. 91 of 2024
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act not applicable if assessee voluntary discloses bona fide mistake. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari noted that “it is a case where the assessee came up fairly before the Assessing Officer correcting the error crept in while submitting the return and revised return that too before initiation of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. Even it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has concealed the income.”
Delhi HC
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.
In its affidavit, the Department submitted that a detailed stakeholder consultation is currently being carried out by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and some time will be required to amend the Baggage Rules. Meanwhile, the above steps are being implemented.
Case title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4004/2025
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials.
“...if a complaint was received in this manner, the CCTV footage ought to be preserved immediately as the same is available only for 30 days. Moreover, the CCTV footage of the Petitioner at the time of departure could also have been preserved to determine whether the Petitioner was wearing a gold kada or not at the time of departure. Therefore, in such cases, immediate action ought to be taken when such a complaint is received,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said.
Delhi VAT | No Interest On Refund For Period Of Delay Attributable To Dealer: High Court
Case title: Lithium Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Value Added Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4925/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that if the delay in granting refund to a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is attributable to the dealer itself, such period of delay shall be excluded for the purposes of awarding interest on refund. Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act stipulates a period of two months for refund of excess tax, penalty, etc., if the period for refund is a quarter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Explanation to Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act and observed, “If the delay in granting the refund is attributable to the said person (dealer), whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable.”
Case title: M/S Raj International v. Additional Commissioner Cgst Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4096/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rise in number of GST related cases being filed before it and to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, particularly those arising out of procedural issues, has asked the Department to depute at least two officials from its litigation section.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said these officials can coordinate with the various Commissionerates of the GST department and give instructions to the Department's counsels, in an expedited manner.
Case title: HVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 67 & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4506/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an order rejecting the rectification application filed by an assessee cannot be passed without first hearing the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further said that the hearing can be dispensed with only where the rectification application is allowed.
Case title: Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Delhi West CGST Commissionerate & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3824/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes twin conditions for Revenue holding back Refund due to an Assesseee, despite an order to that effect.
Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.
Case title: M/S Impressive Data Services Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Gst, Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4662/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it has no discretion to allow a prayer seeking waiver of pre-deposit condition prescribed under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for preferring an appeal under the statute. In terms of Section 107(6), insofar as the admitted tax, interest or penalty is concerned, the entire amount would have to be deposited. In so far as the disputed amount is concerned, 10% of the tax would have to be deposited as a pre-deposit along with the appeal.
The division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that Section 107(6) “ does not give discretion for waiver of the pre-deposit.”
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption Delhi v. IILM Foundation
Case no.: ITA 179/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that a Charitable Trust's status cannot be taken away citing violation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because it made reasonable payment for services rendered by a related party.
Ordinarily, Charitable Trusts are not allowed to make payments for the benefit of 'prohibited parties'. The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia however ruled that if such payment is reasonable, in exchange for the services offered by such a prohibited person, the exemption can be claimed.
Case title: Exide Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4822/2025
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the Department.
Case title: Ms Stesalit Limited & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3138/2025
The Delhi High Court will soon decide the GST rate applicable to roof-mounted air conditioners of specific designs manufactured for the railways.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta are seized with a petition filed by railways and aerospace technology company StesaLIT Limited, challenging a Circular issued by the Union Finance Ministry in 2024, stipulating that above said AC units shall be classified under HSN 8415 (which attracts 28% GST) and not HSN 8607 (which attracts 18% GST).
Case title: M/S Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd Additional Commissioner (Adjn.) v. CGST Delhi North & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2178/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Adjudicating Authority under Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 to undertake fresh adjudication of the show cause notice issued to an assessee, raising demand of more than ₹10 crores.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta did so after noting that such a “substantial” demand was made without even considering the assessee's reply.
Case title: M/S Brijbihari Concast Pvt. Ltd. (Through Its Director Sh. Rajeev Agarwal) v. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Meerurt Zonal Unit (Through Its Additional Director General) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8433/2024
The Delhi High Court has asked the GST authority not to prejudice the business of an assessee, involved in manufacturing of mild steel products, by attaching its complete bank account pending adjudication of ₹15.09 crores tax evasion proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that one year had elapsed since the provisional attachment order was passed but no show cause notice was issued.
Sikh People Usually Wear 'Kada', Personal Effect: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Detention By Customs
Case title: Dalvinder Singh Sudan v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5136/2025
Observing that Sikh persons usually wear kada as part of their religious practice, the Delhi High Court set aside the detention of a Dubai resident's gold kada by the Customs Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Clearly, a perusal of the photographs and the fact that it is one Kada which is usually worn by persons like the Petitioner who are Sikhs, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the same was a personal effect of the Petitioner.”
Case title: J. G'S Departmental Store v. Income Tax Officer Ward 60(1) & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13669/2024
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment action initiated against a partnership firm under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 over cash deposits made by it during demonetisation, stating that this ground was not mentioned in the notice issued to the firm under Section 148A(b).
Holding that reasons for initiating action under Section 148A(d) must be mentioned in the SCN under Section 148A(b), a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tushar Rao Gedela said, “Concededly, there was no allegation in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act that the cash deposited by the Assessee in its bank account during the demonetization period was disproportionately higher in comparison with the cash deposited during the corresponding period in the previous financial year. Thus, the Assessee had no opportunity to provide any explanation in respect of such allegation.”
Case title: Haris Aslam v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4962/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot sit over an appellate body's order directing it to release the goods of an assessee, merely on the ground that the Department seeks to prefer a revision against such order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has also allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay which has been granted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).” Also Read - Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Over Cash Deposits During Demonetisation, Says Order U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Transgressed Notice U/S 148A(b)
Case title: Bhavna Luthra L/H Of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor Of M/S. Hunny Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, Range 8, CGST, Delhi & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4551/2025
The Delhi High Court recently recorded the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the GST Department. The GST registration of the firm owned by her now deceased husband was cancelled in view of his death. However, his widow sought a refund of ₹10,45,793/- balance in the electronic cash ledger of the firm. The said application was rejected by the Department and subsequently, the amount was debited from the Ledger without either being paid to the petitioner or being re-credited in the Ledger.
“It is a matter of concern that almost a year ago, the same Petitioner had appeared before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which, after considering the matter, directed that the refund amount be re-credited within a period of two weeks. It is unfortunate to see that despite the said amount being in the Electronic cash ledger, the refund has not been given to the Petitioner till date,” Court said.
Case title: M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4845/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia in the facts of the case observed, “the AO has erred in proceeding on the basis that it was open for the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind the cumulative income that has escaped assessment in respect of FYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is impermissible for the AO to add income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for different previous years for determining the threshold figure of ₹50 lakhs as specified under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.”
Case title: M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4576/2025
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from being prejudiced due to non-providing of cross examination. Therefore, such reasoning presumes/implies the existence of prejudice. In other words, if the alleging party fails to prove any substantial prejudice caused to it due to such non-provision, it shall not have the inherent right to set aside such an order/judgment.”
Case title: Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4496/2025
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters. The said duty drawbacks are claimed under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however noted that the Scheme has become the subject of misuse by some traders/ exporters who make fraudulent exports merely with a view of availing the benefits under the scheme.
Case title: Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 297/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia clarified that the value alleged by the AO at Section 148A(b) stage, i.e. before considering the Assessee's stand, is not relevant for the purposes of threshold under Section 149.
Case title: Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)
Case no.: ITA 741/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Section 151(1) contemplates issuance of sanction by JCIT for initiating reassessment action under Section 148 against an assessee who has already undergone scrutiny assessment. The proviso to Section 151(1) however adds that if the reassessment action is sought to be initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5304/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it. The decision is a contrast to a coordinate bench decision rendered in July last year, holding that uploading of notices under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, Also Read - Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore “the notice if uploaded on the additional notices tab of the portal, the same would not be proper in as much as the party would not have even acquired knowledge of the same.”
Case title: Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5669/2014
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju relied on Santanu Ray vs. Union of India where the Supreme Court discussed vicarious liability of directors.
Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the contractors were liable to pay GST at a rate prevalent on the last day for the submission of the tenders and not when the work was allocated as the same was clear from the Special Condition No.49 existing in the contract agreement.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Puneet Gupta observed that the review petitioner being a contracting party was bound by the terms of the contract which provides that tax rates as prevailing on the last due date for receipt of tenders will be applicable and in the absence of any challenge to above provision at any point of time the arguments presented were unsustainable.
Jharkhand HC
Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess
Case title: Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand
Case no.: W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.
The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.
Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and ors
Case no.: W.P. (T) No. 7091 of 2023
The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues.
The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.
Case Title: M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(T) No. 6208 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we are having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file its return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand, petitioner-Firm filed appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of almost 17 months which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.”
Case Title: M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand
Case no.: W.P.(T) No. 6527 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained neither by the State, nor by the Centre, that too by taking aid of a provision which on the face of it is directory, inasmuch as, the language couched in Section 54 is 'may make an application before the expiry of 2 years from the relevant date.'”
Karnataka HC
Case Title: M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court stated that inflating contract figures and complaining that tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, amounts to defrauding state.
“Claiming higher contract amount by inflated figures and thereafter complaining that the Tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, virtually amounts to defrauding the State, in two-ways. Such an assessee does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court,” stated the Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar.
Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court stated that value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable.
Kerala HC
Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 13425 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India
Case no.: W.A.NO.1659 OF 2024
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.
As per the 2021 amendment made to the CGST Act, the definition of "supply" was amended to include within its fold "activities or transactions, by a person, other than an individual, to its members or constituents or vice versa, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration." Also, this amendment was given a retrospective effecf from 01.07.2017.
A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 4 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.
The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.
Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Case no.: WP(C) NO. 14743 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal without any determination solely on the ground of non-appearance despite three adjournments.
Case Title: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A.NO.32 OF 2023
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court stated that the amounts received by an assessee as compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his landed property would be treated as income under the head of 'Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “Interest amounts received by an assessee in respect of delayed payment of compensation under the LAA will be treated as accruals to the principal compensation amount and be classified as “Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 (28A), the provisions of Section 56 of the I.T. Act will not be attracted in such cases.”
Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 16984 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts.
The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years.
Madras HC
Case Title: M/s Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Case Number: T.C.(A).No.493 of 2013
The Madras High Court while referring to sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause.
The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should prevail as being more specific in nature.”
Case Title: STS-KEC(JV) v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.(MD). Nos. 3938 to 3942 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.”
CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Case Number: W.A.(MD). Nos. 557 to 568 of 2024
The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee.
Case Title: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.Nos.28380 & 28388 of 2018
The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments.
“The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such additional duty” stated the bench comprising of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P. Nos.33562
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act. The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved.
“Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 169 of the GST Act. Service is complete when it enters the common portal i.e., when it is made available in the common portal,” stated the bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq.
Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No.1114 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved. The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”.
The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.”
Case Title: Tai Industries Ltd. v. The State of Tamilnadu
Case Number: W.A.No.474 of 2021
The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State taxation. The States are free to levy taxes on goods imported into the State.
Case Title: Indian Bank v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.Nos.31572
The Madras High Court stated that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “in the juxtaposition of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act with Section 34 of the RDB Act, it is Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act that will provide the necessary impetus for determining the priority of a charge of security interest in favour of the Financial Institution, as Section 34 of the RDB Act is, by comparison, only a general provision.”
Orissa HC
Lawyers Running Individual Practice Exempt From Levy Of GST, Service Tax: Orissa High Court
Case title: Shivananda Ray v. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. Bhubaneswar and Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) No.6592 of 2025
The Orissa High Court has reminded the GST and Service tax authorities not to harass practicing lawyers by issuing them notices for levy of GST or service tax. A Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice BP Routray thus quashed the notices issued to a Bhubaneswar based lawyer demanding service tax of Rs.2,14,600/- and penalty of Rs.2,34,600/- plus interest.
It observed, “in view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer…the Department the Petitioner is exempted from levy of service tax for such income he derived from his legal service as a Lawyer.”
Patna HC
Case Title: M/s JMD Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15940 of 2023
The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017.
The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods during the transitional period may be found in Section 140 of the CGST Act. While this provision enables an assessee to carry forward and take credit of unutilized CENVAT credit paid on inputs as well as on capital goods, in the manner as may be prescribed and subject to the conditions contained in the provisions, sub-section (5) of Section 140 makes a distinction between the capital goods and inputs. This provides that a registered person would be entitled to take credit of eligible duties and taxes in respect of inputs or input services received on or after the appointed date but the duty on tax in respect of which has been paid by the supplier under the existing law…”
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and Others
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9105 of 2024
The Patna High Court has recently quashed a service tax demand raised against a government contractor, ruling that merely not registering for service tax could not be equated with fraud or suppression of facts warranting the application of the five-year extended limitation period under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed, “the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had not taken registration of the service tax would alone not be a reason to believe that he has committed a fraud or has wilfully suppressed his liability to pay the tax. Rule 4A casts a duty upon every person providing taxable service (not later than thirty days from the date of completion of such taxable service whichever is earlier to issue an invoice, a bill or as the case may be a challan signed by such person or a person authorised by him in respect of such taxable service provided or agreed to be provided.”
Rajasthan HC
Title: M/s Fortune Infovision Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 11431/2018
Rajasthan High Court set aside prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), against the petitioner-company whose business activity related to e-commerce transactions, and owing to delay on part of the companies like Amazon, Naaptol, Ebay, etc. in submitting the bills, the petitioner got delayed by almost 10 months in submitting the deducted TDS.
The division bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma and Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that since the TDS was deposited voluntarily by the petitioner, that too along with interest for delay, no case was made out against the petitioner-company.
Case Title: Giriraj Pugalia v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: Civil Writ Petition No. 3152/2025
Rajasthan High Court denied interference with initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) that were alleged to be initiated merely based on certain WhatsApp Chats, observing that the information in the chats were completely corroborated by specific transactions and hence, the said chat could be considered to be falling under the definition of “other documents” under Section 153C.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali ruled that the ambit of Section 153C was not to restrict the proceedings in relation to 'other person' arising out of Section 153A but to enable such invocation such that in case there was any connecting evidence which was specific and corroborated by facts, no escape was possible for such 'other person'.
Telangana HC
Case title: M/s. Andhra Fuels Private Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case No: TAX REVISION CASES NOS.1, 3 AND 7 OF 2008
In a case pertaining to the taxation of Natural Gas, the Telangana High Court has held that Natural Gas shall fall under Entry 23 of 6th Schedule, under the category of petroleum gases, and not Entry 118. The different entries change the percentage of tax levied.
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that “This bench is of the firm opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the natural gas sold by the petitioner falls under entry 23 of 6th schedule is proper”.
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Kotdwar Steel Limited v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner Kotdwar
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 47 Of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court criticized the GST department for the negative blocking of ITC and questioned the provision under which such deterrent or coercive action has been taken.
“The working of the Department is startling and shocking. It is not known and incomprehensible as to which provision of law permits the Department to take deterrent and coercive action, even prior to issuance of pre-intimation notice,” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: M/S. P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, And CGST Commissionerate
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 52154 Of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is no exemption on the articles described as pendants as the jewellery is not distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “The contention of the assessee that articles of jewellery do not cover pendant of 24 CARAT within its purview is misleading and unsustainable as nowhere in the Chapter Note or the Heading, the jewellery is distinguishable on the basis of purity of gold.
Case Title: Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 86917 of 2016
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim for service tax cannot be claimed on transactions took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India.
The Bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical) has observed that, “The said claim for refund is in respect of service tax paid by the assessee in respect of transactions that took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India and, therefore, that service tax was not payable.”
Case Title: East West Fright Carriers Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 86361 OF 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that failure to file declaration may be considered as a technical irregularity if customs authorities failed to notice it.
“There is no doubt that the declaration had to be made and, the deployment of 'abundant caution' in the instructions notwithstanding, it would appear that the said declaration was of not of insignificance in the procedure prescribed under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 and handling of drawback claims but it has not been shown that customs broker had not advised the client about the documentation and that non-compliance thereof was not to be taken thereof by the proper officer except upon reporting by the broker” stated the Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and CJ Mathew (Technical Member).
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on 27th March 2025 vide Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST has given clarification on various issues related to availment of benefit of Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017.
Based on the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 53rd and 54th meetings, a new section 128A was inserted in the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 164 has been inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1st November 2024 to provide for waiver of interest or penalty or both relating to demands raised under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020.
Case Title: Noorul Ayin Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No: Defect Appeal No. 42151/2024
The Chennai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently clarified that once the luggage/bag which accompanies an individual arriving from a domestic airport in India, during the aircrafts domestic run, is intercepted by the officers, there cannot be a presumption that it is covered under the Customs Act, 1962 and to which the Baggage Rules, 2016 can automatically apply.
The CESTAT therefore held that, “'baggage' under the Baggage Rules 2016, includes jewellery worn or concealed on the person of an individual arriving in India from abroad, and hence this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal pertaining to 'any goods imported or exported as baggage' as per the exclusions carved out by the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962”. (Para 14)
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2(2), Mumba
Case no.: ITA No.5653/MUM/2011
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has granted relief to the Indian Hotels Company Ltd, which owns the Taj hotels chain and set aside an addition of ₹8,22,25,142/- made by the Assessing Officer to its declared income of ₹107,74,26,414/- for the AY 1998-99.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening basis the incorrect invocation of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act since the original assessment had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the Assessee.
No CENVAT Credit On Training Of Employees Of GAIL By Training Institutes: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Gail Training Institute Versus Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50632 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no CENVAT credit on training of employees of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) by training institutes.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The term “coaching and training” must be “coaching and training” of the employees of the assessee. Merely because the bills were paid by the assessee, the services provided by way of coaching and training of employees of GAIL do not become input services of the assessee.”
Customs Officer Is A Stranger To Contract Of Sale, Cannot Re-Determine FOB Value: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Kritika Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract of sale, including the Customs officer, has any right to re-determine the FOB or transactional value of goods.
The Free on Board or (FOB )is one of the INCOTERMS – which are the terms used in international commerce. The INCOTERMS make the costs, risks and liabilities of the buyer and seller explicit. If the goods are exported on FOB basis, the seller is responsible until the goods are put on Board the vessel or aircraft. All costs and risks up to loading the goods on to the ship or aircraft are on the seller‟s account. The seller is free once the goods are put on board. The costs and risks associated with transportation to the destination, etc., are all on account of the buyer.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise- Delhi-IV
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51901 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on buying or selling of space in print media and receiving incentives on meeting targets.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee cannot have an obligation to the media houses. All that is paid by the media houses is, if the assessee achieves particular target while carrying out its business for its clients, the media house gives some incentives.
Case Title: M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Appeal
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51699 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by assessee is entitled to basic customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that what was to be examined was whether the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation contemplated under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for the reason that 'digital still image video cameras' imported by the assessee would not be entitled to basic customs duty exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by the notification dated 17.03.2012 was justified or not.
Case Title: M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur, Headquarters Jaipur
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51722 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that same rate tax and interest applicable on IGST in the course of inter-state trade and supplies in the course of imports.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, the taxable event to levy IGST is the inter-state supply of goods and services (including supplies in the course of international trade). If there is no supply, there is no scope to levy IGST even if goods are imported.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Versus M/s. ITC Ltd, Gurgaon
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 1086 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “In relation to manpower supply to five units on cost recovery basis, the Commissioner noticed that ITC had deputed employees to other hotels to operate and maintain those hotels in line with ITC Welcome group standards and run those hotels in a smooth and efficient manner. Thus, supply of manpower to five hotels for a period of nearly three years would clearly attract service tax under the head of “manpower recruitment or supply agency service”.”
Case Title: M/s Bhardwaj Construction and Electricals Versus Commissioner of CGST and, Service Tax, Excise and Customs
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50967 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that suppression or wilful concealment not attributable when the departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “When the two departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services under a specific category, no suppression or wilful concealment with intent to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the assessee.”
ITAT Rejects Revenue's Appeal Seeking To Make ₹63.21 Billion Addition To DLF's Income For AY 2017-18
Case title: DCIT v. DLF Limited
Case no.: I.T.A. Nos. 711/Del/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the National Faceless Centre (CIT(A)), deleting aggregate ₹63,02,13,86,035 addition made to income of real estate giant DLF Limited on various counts, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
In its 82-page judgement, the Tribunal also disposed of the company's appeal against confirmation of addition made by CIT(A) on account of unverified purchase transactions, by remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Bengaluru civic body, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has introduced 'garbage tax' under which the residents of Bengaluru have to pay a “solid waste management user” fee from 1st April, 2025.
The initiative has been taken by the government to improve the waste collection and disposal across the city. The government aims to generate Rs. 685 crores through this initiative in the current fiscal year.
Pune Property Tax Bills for the financial year 2025-2026 has been delayed to 1st May due to the ongoing verification of PT-3 applications which has been submitted by the homeowners seeking a 40% concession on residential properties.
As per the state government regulations the property owners who reside in their own homes are entitled to a 40% concession on the property and to claim this benefit owners had to submit PT-3 forms.
Centre Imposes 12% Temporary Tariff On Certain Steel Imports, Duty Valid For 200 Days
The Government has imposed a temporary 12% safeguard duty on the import of certain non-alloy and alloy steel flat products. The safeguard duty covers products such as cold-rolled coils sheets; metallic coated steel coils and sheets; hot-rolled coils and sheets; hot rolled plate mill plates; and colour-coated coils and sheets, whether or not profiled.
The duty will not be imposed on the product categories when imported into India at or above the specified import price on cost insurance freight basis.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) through Notification 256(E), under the Union Ministry of Finance, has officially released a comprehensive set of rules outlining the functioning of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Appellate Tribunal.
As per the notification the GST Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025 took effect on 24th April, 2025. The rules have been introduced with an objective of promoting uniformity, procedural clarity and digital efficiency in the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal.