Tax Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
11 Oct 2025 3:55 PM IST
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...
SUPREME COURT
Case : M/S. STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD - III
Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3816-3817 OF 2025
The Supreme Court held that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” which were exempted from service tax as per the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance in 2012 and 2014 under the Finance Act, 1994.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan set aside the assessment orders issued against M/s Stemcyte India Therapeutics Ltd for over Rs 2 crores as service tax for the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014.
Case Title: M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 727
The Supreme Court upheld the MP High Court's decision to levy the 'entry tax' on the beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (“IMFL”) manufacturers for transporting goods into local areas for sale.
The Court reasoned that the liquor manufacturers "cause entry" of goods into local areas, making them liable for tax under Section 2(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (“M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976”), even if sales occur through state-controlled warehouses.
Cause Title: HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) ruled that the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) is sufficient to attract tax liability for a foreign entity in India, even in the absence of exclusive possession of a fixed place of business. The Court clarified that temporary or shared use of premises, when combined with administrative or operational control, is adequate to establish a PE, thereby triggering income tax liability in India.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed Hyatt International's appeal against the Delhi High Court's order, which had held the company liable to pay income tax in India on income earned through its Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Asian Hotels Ltd. for 20 years, the operator of Hyatt's hotel business in India.
Cause Title: M/S ASP TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that by mere payment of penalty for the release of the goods detained under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the assessee cannot be held to have waived the right to file a statutory appeal.
The Court ruled that mere payment of penalty for the release of goods detained during transit under the GST regime does not conclude proceedings unless a formal, reasoned order is passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.
Let GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme Court
Case Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021
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, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144C
Cause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Cause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Cause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..
The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.
Cause Title: M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.
Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.
Cause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.
The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution against the assessee in contrast to its own circulars, which allow launching the prosecution for tax evasion under Section 276C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act”) only after the penalty for concealment is confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Cause Title: M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
The Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 29) ruled that the vehicles operating exclusively within the enclosed premises of a factory or plant are not liable to pay motor vehicle tax, as such areas do not constitute a "public place."
“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3 (“AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act”). If a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a 'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.”, the court said.
Cause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.
The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.
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.
Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHER VERSUS M/S ADANI POWER LTD.
Observing that the movement of goods from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a domestic supply and not an export outside India, the Supreme Court provided relief to Adani Power Ltd. and other entities from paying export duty under the Customs Act, 1962, for the movement of goods from DTA to SEZ.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which ruled that export duty cannot be levied for movement from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to an SEZ. The High Court had held that it was a domestic supply and not an export outside India, therefore exempted from the payment of the export duty.
Supreme Court Dismisses Airports Authority's Appeal Against Service Tax Levy For Cargo Handling
Case : Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) challenging the levy of service tax on services rendered in handling export cargo, ruling that such services fall within the ambit of “taxable services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that while “handling of export cargo” is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23) of the Act, cargo handling service nonetheless qualifies as a “taxable service” in terms of sub-clause (zzm) of Section 65(105) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: S.S. Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3026 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because there was no activity at the principal place of business of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the invoices issued in favour of such assessee are fake.
Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and seeking release of the goods confiscated under Section 129(1)(a) by the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Mobile Unit Khataul, Muzaffarnagar.
Case Title: CELL COM TELESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case no.: WRIT TAX NO. 278 OF 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of income tax return is not mandatory and the delay in filing the Form may be condoned in cases where “genuine hardship” is shown to exist.
Form 10-IC, under the Income Tax Act, is required to filed only if a Domestic Company chooses to pay tax at concessional rate of 22% under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act,1961. Section 115BAA provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter XII of the Income Tax Act, a domestic company may choose to compute its income tax at 22% for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2020 provided the conditions mentioned in Section 115BAA(2) are fulfilled.
Case Title: M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colony v. The Commisssioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 395 of 2007
The Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that the findings of best assessment done by the authorities is perverse is on the assesee.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that “when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.”
Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.”
Case Title: Shree Maa Trading Company And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3171 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax Act will be Proper Officer under the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act as well as the Central Goods & Service Tax Act.
Perusing Section 4 of the IGST Act read with rule 20 of the CGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “The provision provides that the Officer appointed under the State Goods & Service Tax is authorized to discharge their duties as Proper Officer for the purpose of IGST & CGST. Further, the notification will be required only if some exceptions and conditions are required to be carved out on the recommendation of the GST Council.”
[CGST Act] Tax Officers Expected To Know Law Laid Down By Higher Courts: Allahabad High Court
Case title: - M/S Rajdhani Udyog v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 3684 of 2025
While calling for personal affidavit from Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of U.P., Lucknow explaining the conduct of the tax officers in the State in not following the orders of the High Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that the Officers must know the law.
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that, “While it is expected from the citizen to know law, the duty of the Officers increases that they should also know the law laid down by the higher courts.”
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.”
Case Title: Shree Balaji Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has issued notices to office of the Solicitor General of India and Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh in a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 127 of the Central and State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was issued an order under Section 127, which he allegedly came to know of in 2025. It has been pleaded that the orders were neither sent to the petitioner nor uploaded on the portal. Petitioner, in the writ petition, submitted that proceedings under Section 74 were initiated regarding transactions made by the petitioner with another assesee, which were later dropped.
Case Title: M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited Versus Union Of India And 4 Others
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025
The Allahabad High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts cannot be done merely upon issue of show cause notice under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and its earlier judgment in R.D. Enterprises v. Union of India, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held, “If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken.”
Case Title: Mahesh Gautam v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 436 of 2012
The Allahabad High Court has held that notices under Section 148 and 282 of the Income tax Act, 1961 must be delivered to the assesee personally through speed post and not merely upon his address to complete service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
It held that presumption of sufficient service arises only when the notice is sent by registered post as in registered post the notice is delivered to the person it is addressed to. Highlighting the difference between registered post and speed post, the Court held that service will be deemed sufficient when sent through speed post only if it has been delivered to the addressee him/herself and not upon the address to a different person.
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s. Mahadev Transport And Contractors v. Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos:16500, 16548 & 18862 of 2025
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of document identification number doesn't render assessment orders void.
The bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam were addressing the issue where the assessee/petitioner has challenged the assessment orders passed against him. The main ground for challenge is the lack of a Document Identification Number on the orders, passed by the assessing officers.
Bombay HC
Case Title: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt, not taxable.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne were addressing the issue of whether an incentive received in sales tax liability under a Scheme formulated by the State Government would be on the capital account, exempt from taxation, or on the revenue account, liable for taxation.
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations.
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason to believe that some of the income has escaped assessment.
Case Title: M/s. Skypak Services Specialists Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2014
The Bombay High Court has upheld the licence cancellation of a courier agency for clearing imports without authorisation by stating that any such exercise of discretion of leniency will only encourage persons to commit the offence by taking recourse to the services of the courier agencies.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “the petitioner has been negligent in carrying out its obligation under the 1998 Regulations. These obligations are cast on the Authorised Courier since the petitioner was engaged in the business of clearance of imports and exports. There is a high degree of responsibility cast upon the petitioner in the discharge of its functions because the repercussions of illegal imports and exports are economically and otherwise also far reaching.”
Case Title: Darshan Singh Parmar v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to pay informer for assisting in tax evasion recovery.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the Government has formulated a reward scheme, it must be implemented fairly and transparently. Informers who take risks and invest time must not be made to run from pillar to post to secure what may be due and payable. There must be no unreasonable delay in paying the determined reward amounts, and the practice of raising frivolous and belated objections only to avoid legitimate payments must also be eschewed.”
Case Title: M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: Income Tax Appeal No. 407 of 2003
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a provision for doubtful debts cannot be treated as either a "reserve" or a "provision for liability" under clauses (b) or (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus cannot be added back to the book profits for the purpose of minimum alternate tax (MAT). The Court accordingly overturned the addition of ₹2.49 crore made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Tribunal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing an appeal filed by M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd., which had made a provision for doubtful debts in its profit and loss account for the Assessment Year 1997–98.
Case Title: M/s. Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agricultural Farm v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that insurance claim received on dead horses is capital receipt, not taxable as income under Section 41(1) Of Income Tax Act.
The bench opined that horses in respect of which the insurance claim was received were Assessee's capital assets and that therefore insurance receipt arising therefrom could only have been considered as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that a GST notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act can't be issued directly to the bank. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act was not addressed to the assessee but directly to the bank.
“Where such notice is served on a person, he can prove to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the notice that the money demanded or any part thereof was not due to the person in default or that he did not hold any money for or on account of the person in default at the time the notice was served on him nor is the money demanded or any part thereof, likely to become due to the said person or be held for or on account of such person” opined the bench.
GST TRAN-I Credit Can Be Revised Based On Manually Filed Excise Return: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15536 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court held that GST TRAN-I credit can be revised based on manually filed ER-1 Return.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “there were technical issues with respect to revising TRAN-1 and non-availability of electronic mode to revise excise return and it is only after directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 that the assessee was able to revise its TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by filing manual revised excise return to claim the credit and transitioned under new regime.”
Case Title: GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.12528 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that a GST order can't be a copy-paste of the show cause notice and that independent reasoning must be present.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “simply cutting and pasting the allegations in the show cause notice or mechanically reciting them verbatim does not inspire confidence that due consideration has been shown to the cause, and the decision is made after its due consideration. Ultimately, these are aspects of natural justice principles that should guide the decision-making process in such cases.”
Case Title: Umicore Autocat India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 463 of 2024
The Bombay High Court has directed the GST Council and GST Network to develop a mechanism for cross-state ITC transfer in Mergers/amalgamations.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta permitted the IGST and CGST amount lying in the electronic credit ledger of the Transferor Company to be transferred to the Petitioner Company by physical mode for the time being, subject to the adjustments to be made in future.
Case Title: Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range – 3, Pune
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2003
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 from sale of a single residential house.
Case Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.
Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Associated Cement Company Limited
Case Number: SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 20 OF 2010
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed.
“HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its own identity and were classified separately. There was no chemical or physical change in the packing either at the time of packing or at the time of use of the contents. The packing is capable of being reused after the contents have been consumed; there was evidence of reuse or resale, which was not challenged by the revenue. The HDPE bags were used to pack the cement for ease of transportation and convenience…,” opined the bench.
Case Title: Commissioners of Customs (Export) v. Bank of India & Anr.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process).
Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no claim was lodged by the department. This petition was instituted almost 10 years after the guarantee expired, and that too by instituting a writ petition, probably realising that a suit would be barred by limitation.”
Case Title: Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.681 OF 2003
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of the Assessee.
Case Title: M/s. Eagle Security & Personnel Services v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1687 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely because persons covered by RCM cannot claim credit of ITC cannot be seen in a microscopic way to hold the notification and the provision as ultra vires.
Case Title: Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Raigad
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court held that interest on fixed deposits, TDS refund linked to business qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides tax incentives for businesses operating in certain sectors such as infrastructure, power, and telecommunications.
Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated that the placement of fixed deposits was imperative for the purpose of carrying on the eligible business of the assessee. The placement of fixed deposits is not for parking surplus funds which are lying idle. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the assessee had used these fixed deposits for purchasing cranes for the eligible business. There is a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the eligible business of the assessee.
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.
Case Title: Sruti Vijaykumar v. Falgun Yogendra Shroff and anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.4670 of 2025
The Bombay High Court has stated that facing tax prosecution does not automatically bar an accused from foreign travel.
Justice S.M. Modak stated that, "It is true right to travel abroad is recognized as a fundamental right. Merely because a person is facing with prosecution, it does not mean that he cannot travel abroad till the time the investigation is under progress or criminal case is pending."
Case Title: M/s Provident Housing Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court held that tax liability under JDA (joint development agreement) arises only upon conveyance of property, not on execution of agreement.
The bench consists of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that no liability actually fell upon the assessee at the time when JDA was entered into, as the liability arises only upon the conveyance of the property. The assessee developer becoming the owner of the property for which the JDA was executed. Accordingly, the tax liability does not fall upon the assessee.
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.
Case Title: Hikal Limited v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that all pending proceedings under the omitted CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) lapse in the absence of a savings clause.
The bench agreed with the assessee/petitioners that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore the pending proceedings can claim no immunity or protection.
Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10708 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court has held that re-testing of seized goods is a trade facilitation measure, not to be denied in the ordinary course.
Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/10/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Case Number: ITAT/215/2024
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/4/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
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 validate the transaction.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/88/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
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 was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Case Number: ITAT/36/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chhattisagarh HC
ITC Not Available On Cess For Electricity Supplied To Residential Township: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: WPT No. 14 of 2021
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that input tax credit is not available on cess for electricity supplied to residential township.
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal stated that the electricity generated is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer(assessee), hence, the assessee would not be entitled for ITC to electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township.
Case Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 8 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year's balance.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.
Compensation Received From NHAI For Acquisition Of Land Not Taxable: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Baid v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 176 of 2025
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the compensation received against the acquisition of land from the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) is not exigible to tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal stated that once compensation is determined under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, as a necessary corollary, the benefits flowing from the provisions of the said Act, including exemptions from income tax, stamp duty and fees contemplated under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, would also have to be made applicable.
Delhi HC
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Case no.: ITA 150/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS). The Court referred to earlier judgments to emphasize the difference between transferring intellectual property rights and simply giving access to standardized digital services. It dismissed the appeal, highlighting the key distinction between access to digital resources and ownership or control over them.
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Case no.: SERTA 5/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that such an appeal, even on a limited point of limitation, will not lie before the High Court under Section 35G.
It observed, “Even if the question of limitation has been raised, the Court has to go into the merits of the matter after a decision on the question of limitation is made. The maintainability of the appeal would have to be examined on the said benchmark…The obvious conclusion would be that if this Court holds that the SCN was within the limitation, the issue of taxability would have to be gone into.”
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11601/2024
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
The notice was issued following a survey conducted by the Income Tax Department at the J&K Bank back in 2019, revealing that the company had made foreign remittances amounting to ₹6,50,84,454/- during AY 2017-18, which did not tally with the amounts reflected in its bank statement.
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8788/2025
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.
Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 192/2025
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noted that the registered agreement to sell and payment of stamp duty with respect to the property transaction were already completed by the date when the circle rate of the area in question was enhanced.
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9269/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: CUSAA 66/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus dismissed the Department's appeal against Nokia. Nokia sought refund of excess duty paid on import of mobile handsets. While the goods were exempted by the Central government vide a notification issued in March 2015, Nokia said it had paid additional duty of customs at the rate of 6%.
Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9061/2025
The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus interdicted the bank from attaching the account of an assessee, who had preferred an appeal against demand. It observed, “A perusal of Section 107(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the judgments relied on, would show that once an appeal is filed and pre-deposit is made, there is automatic stay of the impugned order. In view thereof, the attachment of the bank account is not sustainable.”
Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9141/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.
Section 122 contemplates penalties for certain offences under the GST Act, including fraudulent availment of input tax credit. Section 122(1A) was introduced by the Finance Act 2020 and came into effect on 1 January 2021. It prescribes that any person who retains the benefit of wrongfully availed ITC, etc. and at whose instance such a transaction is conducted, shall be liable to penalty.
Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 92/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed that unless the recipient absorbs the technology and exploits it independently, it cannot qualify as 'FTS' which is taxable in India for the service provider.
Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3979/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia rejected Revenue's contention that there was no requirement that the information contained in the seized material which relates to a non-searched person should have a bearing on his income for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1575/2018
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Merely on some unauthenticated information received from a third Country with no material evidence, is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case and there cannot be a presumption that a person has committed any wrongdoing.Thus, mere surmise and conjectures is not enough to prosecute a person alleging a criminal offence under Section 276D.”
Case title: Puneet Batra v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025
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 cannot take such steps against him.
Case title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4853/2025
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 occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.”
GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court
Case title: Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6768/2023
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 2018, obviously, no refund can be granted till the said GST registration of the Petitioner is restored.”
Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court
Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4781/2025
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.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “While the purpose behind Section 73(10) of the CGST Act is to fix the date by which an adjudication order has to be issued, the purpose of Section 73(2) of the CGST Act is to ensure that at least three months is available to the taxable person for filing a reply to the show cause notice issued to them and for being heard in a proper manner…the expression 'three months' has to be reckoned and interpreted as three calendar months and not as 90 days.”
Case title: Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10392/2025
The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.
Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7230/2025
The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal jewellery as it is prohibited goods. This is contrary to the settled law.”
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Case no.: CRL. M.C. 219/2018
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] where it was held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act.
Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11906/2025
The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.
Though the trader sought to contend that reply could not be filed as he is not a frequent visitor to the GST portal, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar said, “It is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal. The Petitioner was well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him and such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever.”
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Case no.: ITA 299/2025
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'. A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus held that the Indian entity is not liable to deduct TDS in such cases.
The bench in this regard relied on Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Incometax & Another (2021) where the Supreme Court had held that amounts paid by Indian companies for the use of softwares developed by foreign companies do not amount to 'royalty' and that such payment do not give rise to income which is taxable in India.
Case title: Suresh Kumar v. Commissioner CGST Delhi North
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12199/2025
The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon the assessee in question via email.
Case title: M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: CUSAA 35/2024
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over alleged import of counterfeit iPhones, stating that such imports not only affect brand owners but also adversely affect consumer welfare— as old and used products could get re-branded as new ones.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed, “Consumers in India may be made to pay more for used, second hand or counterfeit products under the impression that they are original branded products. Such imports also have an impact on the brand equity and goodwill of the original manufacturers in India.”
Case title: Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11626/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.
Stating that this approach reflects a “complete non-application of the mind”, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain directed the Department to adjudicate both the issues afresh.
Case title: Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11815/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus observed that refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the 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: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12487/2025
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a Muslim woman whose gold bangles were seized by the Customs Department on return from Mecca and were withheld despite an order of the Adjudicating Authority, directing release.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that merely because the Department plans to seek a review of the order for return, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, is not grounds to withhold the return of seized articles.
Case title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 9139/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown. In the opinion of this Court, under such circumstances where the allegation of the Petitioner is that there is an impersonation of the Petitioner's credentials, the matter ought to be investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.”
Case title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12907/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that considering the prevailing policy in India to encourage start-ups and MSMEs, the Customs Department also needs to be sensitized to ensure that such parties are given some consideration, especially, when the goods are not prohibited goods.
Case title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13229/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “non-appearance for appraisement does not stop the limitation for the issuance of the SCN in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.”
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second offence.”
Case title: Uday Jain & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Customs Air Cargo And Import & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13092/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the artwork of Padma Bhushan awardee Late BC Sanyal, seized amid a dispute surrounding its valuation.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed there is no conclusive proof that the artwork was made in Pakistan, as claimed by the Department. “The bill of entry itself reveals that the import is being effected from Dubai,” it observed.
Case title: Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General) v. M/S Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Ltd
Case no.: CUSAA 111/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Customs Broker must diligently perform its responsibilities under the 2018 Licensing Regulations however, any failure thereof must be met with a proportionate punishment.
While dealing with a case where the broker's license was suspended due to alleged failure to oversee warehousing of goods meant for re-export, leading to their sale in the domestic market, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “There is no doubt that Customs Brokers do have significant responsibility under the CBLR (Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations) 2018 which ought to be performed with diligence and commitment. The fact that the Respondent did not oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear infraction.”
Case title: M/S Tecmax Electronics v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Case no.: CUSAA 121/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of pre-deposit for preferring an appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is mandatory and the forum has no power to admit any appeal without the same.
However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further added that the High Court may, in rare circumstances, waive off the said deposit. It observed, “CESTAT does not have the power to admit appeal without the pre-deposit, however, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may waive the same in rare circumstances, on a case to case basis.”
Case title: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 49(1), New Delhi
Case no.: ITA 267/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that an employer can claim deduction of employees' contributions towards Provident Fund or Employer's State Insurance Fund, held by it in trust, only if it deposits these amounts on or before the statutory due date prescribed under the relevant labour law.
Thus a division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar held, “Employer's contributions under Section 36(1)(iv) and employees' contributions covered under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section2(24)(x) are fundamentally different in nature and must be treated separately. Employees' contribution deducted from their salaries are deemed to be income under Section 2(24)(x) and are held in trust by the employer. The employers can claim deduction only if they deposit these amounts on or before the statutory due date under Section 36(1)(va).”
Case title: Sonaram Bagadaram Mali v. The Commissioner Of Custom & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13649/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that misleading consumers about locally manufactured goods by labelling them as 'Made in China' or in some other foreign country is contrary to public interest.
The bench was dealing with a Customs case whereby Petitioner's goods (mobile tempered glass) bearing 'Made in China' mark were seized by the Department in a raid.
Delhi High Court Directs Customs Department To Set Up Passenger Grievance Counters At Delhi Airport
Case title: Imran v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10651/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Customs at the IGI Airport to create some counters of the Department outside the airport's security zone, for easy access of aggrieved passengers.
The direction was made by a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain after the Petitioner, a resident of Kuwait whose gold cut piece was seized by the Department, complained that since the counters of the Customs Department are in the secured area, it is not easy to access them for making representations.
Case title: Raj Krishan Gupta And Ors v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) -1 New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11005/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld the surprise search and seizure conducted by the Income Tax Department at the private lockers maintained by a family at South Delhi Vaults, without issuance of prior notice or summons to them. The family claimed that failure to notify them was a flagrant violation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which relates to 'Search and seizure'.
Section 132(1)(c) stipulates that when the Department has 'reason to believe' that any person is in possession of undisclosed money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles, then the officer authorised may open the locker, safe, etc. and seize such articles. The Petitioners however stressed on sub-sections (a) of the provision which stipulates issuance of summons or notice to such persons, asking them to produce books of account explaining the articles.
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.
Case Title: Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13821/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued directions safeguarding the right to privacy in GST search proceedings, stating that any family-related CCTV footage which violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner.
“Some of the concerns which are raised by the Petitioners such as right to privacy of the family being violated, etc., deserve to be addressed. Clearly, any family-related CCTV footage which is with the GST department and violates the privacy of family members cannot be used or disseminated in any manner,” stated the bench consists of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain.
One Rolex Watch Can Be For Personal Use, Not 'Commercial Quantity': Delhi High Court To Customs
Case title: Mahesh Malkani v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14402/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that one Rolex watch seized by the Customs Department from an air passenger cannot be called 'commercial quantity'. It thus cautioned the Department's Adjudicating Authority against “error” on its part, in declaring the same as commercial.
“Clearly, this Court is of the view that one Rolex watch cannot be held to be a commercial quantity and there is no reason as to why the same cannot be kept for personal use,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed.
Case title: Union of India v. Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. And Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14723/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to hear challenges to notifications issued by the Central Government, imposing Anti-Dumping Duty.
Prior to Finance Act 2023, Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which is the governing provision for appeals before CESTAT, conferred jurisdiction on CESTAT to hear appeals against 'order'. However, post amendment vide Section 134 of Finance Act, the power is circumscribed to appeals against 'determination or review'. Hence, the question before the High Court is whether only 'determination or review' finding of the DGTR can be challenged before CESTAT or also the 'order' of its acceptance by the Finance Ministry.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when GST rates applicable on a given product are reduced by the GST Council, its benefit should trickle down to the end consumer by reduction in prices of such products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that letting manufacturers increase the quantity of the product while charging the same MRP will defeat the purpose of rate-cuts.
Case title: M/s Sharma Trading Company v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13194/2018
The Delhi High Court has held that an authority constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can order businesses to reduce their prices following reduction in GST rates applicable to their products.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that such authority can also impose penalty or cancel GST registration of those in default, in extreme cases.
Case title: M/S Dart Air Services Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs (Airport And General)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7116/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Customs can impose a penalty on a courier service which fails to report suspicious consignments being sent or received from abroad.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that courier agencies have a responsibility to ensure that whenever there are any suspicious courier packets being delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same ought to be reported to the concerned authority.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 198/2025
The Customs Department recently informed the Delhi High Court that the Draft Baggage Rules (amending Baggage Rules, 2016) have been finalized and are ready to be issued.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were further informed that the Department is awaiting upgradation of IT infrastructure, for effective implementation of the new rules.
Case title: M/S A. L. Exports Through Its Proprietor Arsh v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15025/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came across a peculiar case relating to Input Tax Credit refund claim, whereby a notice for personal hearing was issued to the trader, after the Appellate Authority rejected its plea.
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain flagged the glitch in the Department's portal, which generated a personal hearing notice after the passage of the final order.
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Naser Ali Mondal v The State of Assam and Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/4157/2025
The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation and transfer Pricing v. M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd.
Case Number: R/TAX APPEAL NO. 514 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court stated that DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) prevails over Section 206AA of Income Tax Act for TDS on payments to non-residents without PAN.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi was addressing the appeals pertains to alleged short deduction of TDS and raising demand by invoking provisions of section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Validity Of GST Advisory On Interest For Delayed Tax Payment
Case Title: Reliance Formulation Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ghatak 21, Division 2
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5453 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the validity of the GST advisory on interest for delayed tax payment.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi stated that the reference to Section 79 of the GST Act in the advisory is only to put the assessee on guard as to such outstanding liability as per the record of the Authority so that the assessee can either make the payment of such liability if agreed or may oppose the same when the notice in Form GST DRC-01D is received by the assessee for recovery of such amount.
Case Title: Sazid Ali Khan v. Office of Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Vadodara-I & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6437 of 2025
The Gujarat High Court held that GST officers issuing summons/arrest memo are not required to be cross-examined by assessee.
Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi observed that the assessee wants to cross-examine the persons who belongs to the department who have either issued the summons or arrest memo. Such persons are not required to be cross-examined by the assessee.
Case-Title: Commissioner State Taxes and anr. Vs M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, 2025
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 by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the petition challenging the absence of a penalty under Section 6 of the J&K Entry Tax Act, 2000, and underscored the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
Jammu & Kashmir HC
Case-Title: IQBAL MUBARIK vs UT of J&K
Case no.: WP(C) No. 1154/2024
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that the Department of Home is liable to reimburse GST in addition to the fixed rent to hotel owners whose accommodations have been requisitioned for housing security forces. The petitioner had filed the petition seeking a direction that the tax amount be paid or reimbursed separately by the Home Department over and above the fixed rent.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Parihar and Sanjeev Kumar observed that while the rental rates were fixed much earlier, the introduction of GST makes it mandatory for hoteliers to register under the Act and pay tax on the rental income.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: Gagandeep Singh and another v. State of H.P. and another
Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 338 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stated that fake supplier addresses indicate prima facie GST evasion and refused to quash complaint under Section 69 of CGST Act.
“When the officials went to the addresses mentioned in the invoices and found that no such entity existed, it was sufficient to infer that the invoices were fake, and the material shown to have been supplied as per the invoices could not have been supplied since no such person existed at the given address”, stated the bench.
Karnataka HC
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
IGST Not Leviable On Secondment Of Employee From Overseas Group Companies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1779 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST is not leviable on secondment arrangement with overseas entities.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was addressing the issue of whether a secondment constitutes a taxable supply of manpower services or a non-taxable employer-employee relationship exempt under Schedule III of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Muni Naga Reddy HUF v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 12543 OF 2025 (T-RES)
The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST department to establish tracking system for notices sent to the taxpayers via email
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it is required for the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notices, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read.
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…
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…"
Karnataka High Court Directs CBDT To Extend Tax Audit Due Date To 31st October
The Karnataka High Court today directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes to extend the due date for filing Tax Audit Reports under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by one month to 31st October, 2025.
The Court took into consideration the difficulties faced and directed the CBDT to extend the due date until the end of October.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Geetha K.K v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO.9318 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that assessment proceedings against deceased person invalid without notice to legal heirs under Section 93 CGST Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. addressed the issue where the wife of the deceased, challenged the GST DRC-07 summary order issued in the name of her deceased husband.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that merely because of the reason that, while ordering the confiscation in the order, the conveyance was not specifically included, it cannot be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Case Title: Ison George v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WA NO. 753 OF 2020
The Kerala High Court stated that luxury tax under Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act is constitutionally valid post 101st Amendment to the Constitution but a demand that extends to more than three years prior to the date of the demand notice cannot be legally sustained.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings' and so long as the charge under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act can be traced to the power of the State Legislature under Article 246 r/w Entry 49 of the List II of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, the argument against legislative competitiveness must necessarily fail.”
Case Title: M/s Cappithan Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that no right to reinstatement of customs broker license after breach of trust with customs department.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “…..the relationship between the Customs Department and the Customs Broker appointed in terms of the Regulations is essentially one of trust. Once that trust is broken, and the Customs Broker ceases to inspire the confidence of the Customs Department in relation to his functioning, he loses the right to seek a reinstatement of his license under the Regulations.”
Case Title: M/s Premier Marine Foods v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.46801 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that customs cannot rely on Sec. 122A to deny personal hearing mandatory under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. after analysing Section 28(8) of the Customs Act observed that it is evident that, as far as personal hearing is concerned, it is made mandatory as per the provision. Since this is a special provision deals with the issue on hand, the reliance placed by the department upon Section 122A, which is a general provision, cannot be made applicable to the case.
Case Title: Manu Valiyaveettil Madhu v. Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 42612 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that service of notice on the adult member of noticee is valid under Section 153 Of Customs Act, 1962 which outlines the modes of service for notices, orders, summons, and other communications under the Act and its rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the contentions that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted. The notice was served upon the assessee through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the assessee. By utilizing the said opportunity, the assessee appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice.”
Case Title: Mr. Thomas Joseph v. Union of India
Case Number: WA NO. 430 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has allowed the settlement application under Section 245A of the Income Tax Act filed beyond cutoff date, while citing Supreme Court's COVID limitation order.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj referred to the order of Supreme Court in MA. Nos.665 of 2021 [In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation] and stated that the assessee had filed the application for settlement on 17.03.2022, which is well within the time granted by the Supreme Court taking note of the Covid pandemic situation.
Case Title: Salim Aboobacker v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 12164 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to undergo the rigor of the statutory proceedings”.
Case Title: Sherly Thomas Nalpathamkalam v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate.
Case Title: Keerampara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 15933 OF 2022
The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessee was issued with a new PAN card, wherein, the status of the assessee was shown as the AOP (Association of Persons).
Case Title: M/s Ginger Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO.5495 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension.
Case Title: Mediacloud Studio Private Limited v. The Assessment Unit
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 17312 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the said notice as well. However, that by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions put forward by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Luxe Panel Distributors v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18501 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court held that the benefits to registered retail traders under MSMED Act, 2006 (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) limited to priority sector lending only, and are not eligible for QCO [Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024] exemption.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “the entire category of wholesale and retail trades were excluded completely from the purview of MSMED Act and later, they were re-included within the purview of the Act. Such re-inclusion was for a limited purpose of availing priority sector lending. Therefore, since such inclusion was for a limited purpose, which is confined to the priority lending only, nothing beyond such benefits can be claimed by the Micro Enterprises, coming within the category of wholesale and retail trade.”
Case Title: A One Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 14218 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has upheld triple tax on unauthorised construction due to lack of proof of deemed permit.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in the absence of any documents indicating the submission of application for permit and inaction on the part of the Panchayat in considering the said application, the contention of the assessee as to the deemed permit cannot be accepted.”
Department Serving Notice Via WhatsApp Post-COVID Is Not Valid U/S 169 CGST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 973 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that notice via WhatsApp was permitted only during COVID-19 pandemic and is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 CGST Act. Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, outlines various methods for serving notices, orders, or communications under the GST law.
Justices Nitin Jamdar and Basant Balaji was addressing the case where the department had served the detention and confiscation order to the assessee through WhatsApp.
Case Title: Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO.12516 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the powers of revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is confined to reviewing existing orders, and the authority cannot issue directions to the assessing authority. Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner to revise certain orders.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the department that powers conferred upon the revisional authority are confined to examine the sustainability of an order passed under the provisions of the Act and it does not extend to issuing orders to the assessing authority without reference to any order so passed.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Case Number: W.A.NO.1090 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Case Number: ICR (OT.REV) NO. 3 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
The bench opined that “the input tax credit can be legitimately availed by the purchasing dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, even in cases where the selling dealer failed to remit the tax due to the government, provided that the purchasing dealer has strictly complied with all statutory requirements including possession of genuine tax invoices as required under the statute.”
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 4274 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24012 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: Mrs. Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 40744 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K.
Case Number: WA NO. 1543 OF 2016
The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute.
Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 12770 of 2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% relief under the 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020).
Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that the assessee's case is pending before the appellate authority, and the department wrongly considered the case of the assessee under Category 1 of Section 4(1) of the Ordinance, which deals with the amount related to the statutory certificate/declaration.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Department
Case Number: VALUE ADDED TAX APPEAL No. 73 of 2019
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that White Petroleum Jelly is classified as a 'Drug', not 'Cosmetic', and therefore is not liable to higher VAT and Entry Tax.
Justices Vivek Rusia and Jai Kumar Pillai stated that a White Petroleum Jelly of IP grade manufactured and sold by appellant under a valid drug licence is liable to be classified as a category of drug and medicine under Entry 19-A of Part II, Schedule II of the MP VAT Act.
Madras HC
Case Title: M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: C.M.A. Nos.71 & 131 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that customs department bound by DGFT's classification of capital goods under EPCG scheme (export promotion capital goods scheme).
The Division Bench consists of Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar observed that “there is no justification in the Department having made the assessee litigate the issue needlessly despite the CBEC having categorically confirmed as early as in 2002 that the Customs Department must align with the stand of the DGFT and DG (Tourism) in matters of imports by hotels. The licence where the imports have been classified as 'capital goods' has not been revoked or withdrawn and it is nobody's case that the licence has been obtained on a wrongful or fraudulent basis.”
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment.
Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority.
Case Title: M/s. Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. The State Tax Officer & Ors.
Case Number: W.A(MD) No.1821 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10304 of 2025
The Madras High Court stated that the GST authority can dismiss the rectification application without a personal hearing. The issue before the bench was whether the third proviso to Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017, requires complying with the principles of natural justice even for dismissing a rectification petition.
The Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that “When the rectification application is dismissed as such without there being anything more, the original order stands as such. In that event, there is no rectification at all. When there is no rectification, there is no question of invoking the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Vajra Global Consulting Service LLP v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Case Number: W.P.No.18560 of 2023
The Madras High Court held that digital marketing is a business and not a profession; and an audit report is not required for turnovers below Rs. 5 crores.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. In the event anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which is below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee is not required to file an audit report and they are exempted.”
Case Title: Chandrasekaran Proprietor Subha Earth Movers v. Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: W.P.No.30638 of 2025
The Madras High Court has directed the department to issue a circular urging assessees to engage only qualified consultants for GST compliance.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that, "This Court comes across similar instances in several cases, extending ill advice to the clients by the consultants, who are all not qualified persons. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant."
Case Title: M/s Arul Industries v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: TCA No.340 of 2016
The Madras High Court stated that the Income Tax commissioner cannot revise an assessment merely because detailed reasoning was not given in the order.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan stated that, "an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the Income Tax Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, simply because, according to the Commissioner, the order should have been written more elaborately."
Case Title: M/s.Sivakumar and Co., Perundurai Road, Erode v. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Case Number: W.P.No.33265 of 2007
The Madras High Court has held that if the assessee has purchased goods both within the State and from other States, then to claim exemption for inter-State purchases, the purchases made within the State must be segregated from those made from others.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam stated that when the facts are established in clear terms that the goods were found mingled during the course of physical verification/inspection, the decision of the assessing Authority and the appellate Tribunal that the assessee is not entitled for exemption, is correct and in consonance with the provisions of the exemption Order.
Case Title: M/s. Inalfa Gabriel Sunroof Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai
Case Number: C.M.A.No.2553 of 2025
The Madras High Court has held that the scope of appeal is limited under Section 28KA of the Customs Act and an advance ruling is binding unless it is palpably arbitrary or irrational.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan stated that the scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, is limited, as the ruling obtained is binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962. Unless the ruling of the Authority is palpably arbitrary or irrational or without any proper reasoning, they cannot be interfered by this Court under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962.
No Tax Exemption On Bakery Products Sold At Snack Bar: Madras High Court
Case Title: Cakes N Bakes v. The Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: W.P.No. 19651 of 2007
The Madras High Court held that there is no tax exemption for bakery products sold in a snack bar.
Justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Saravanan were addressing the issue of whether bakery products sold in a snack bar are covered under the notification G.O.P.No.570 dated 10th June 1987 and exempted from tax.
Orissa HC
Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.15220 of 2025
The Orissa High Court held that the reconstituted GSTAT (Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal) selection committee has the authority to restart the entire appointment process.
“…….Mere offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible or inchoate right into the appointment. Even a person, whose name is included in the select list, cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to appoint a person to a post subject to the fulfillment of the various criteria envisaged in the statutory provisions” opined the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman.
Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Title: Harvinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Case Number: CWP-9172-2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that failure to notify commissioner of partner's retirement makes former partner liable for firm's GST. Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017 extends the liability in case of partnership firm to its partners as well.
Justices Lisa Gill and Sudeepti Sharma stated that “intimation of retirement of partner has to be given to the Commissioner by notice in writing and that in case, no such intimation is given within one month from the date of retirement, liability of such partner under first proviso shall continue until the date on which such intimation is received by the Commissioner.”
Patna HC
Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Sai Steel v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13163 of 2024
The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date.
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax under IGST Act.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Khuman Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
The Rajasthan High Court rejected the challenge made to an amendment brought in by the Transport Department by which a new category of “sleeper bus” was added for levying motor vehicle tax, taking it out from the previous category without qualifying it for the exemptions available under other categories.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the “bus” fell in the definitions under Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and once the type or class of vehicle was categorised further based on seating capacity/berth arrangement as per body types defined under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State was within its right to categorize such vehicle for tax imposition.
Title: IDP Education Indian Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India & Ors. and other connected petitions
While hearing a petition against the decision of Department of Revenue by a company providing services to a foreign entity, Rajasthan High Court held that for someone to be called an “intermediary”, there had be existence of 3 parties in the contract, in the absence of which, the services rendered under a bipartite agreement could not be called “intermediary”.
The division bench of Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing the petition filed by a subsidiary of IDP Australia, a foreign entity assisting students with their enrolment with foreign universities.
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.
Title: Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v UOI & Anr.
The Rajasthan High Court has extended the deadline for filing the Tax Audit Report by one month. A division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta at the Rajasthan High Court extended the deadline under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by 1 (one) month beyond September 30, 2025.
It was submitted that in the previous years, CBDT had consistently granted such extensions in similar circumstances, and refusal to grant the same in the present situation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and a violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sikkim HC
Case Title: Union of India v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise
Case Number: W.A. No. 02 of 2025
The Sikkim High Court stated that no refund of unutilised ITC (Input Tax Credit) on closure of business under section 54 CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax), must be reversed under section 29(5).
Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan stated that the accumulated credit on closure of business must be reversed under section 29(5) and no refund can be granted under section 49(6) and section 54 of the CGST Act and the relevant rules.
TRIBUNALS
Case title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case no.: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50727 OF 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has held that lithium-ion batteries used for the manufacture of mobile phones up to March 31, 2020 would attract 12% GST.
A Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) added that if lithium-ion batteries were not used in the manufacture of mobile phones, they would attract 28% GST up to July 26, 2018 and 18% GST thereafter until March 31, 2020.
HIV Test Kits Qualify As Life-Saving Diagnostic Kits; Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Cepheid India Private Limited v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52186 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that HIV-VL test kits qualify as life-saving diagnostic kits and is eligible for customs duty exemption.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the HIV-VL test kits are “life-saving diagnostic kits” used for detection and prognosis of HIV-virus in a human body.
Case Title: M/s Goldstar Glasswares Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52752 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that bonafide declaration of value of goods can't be treated as suppression merely for being incorrect.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the declaration of the value of goods was a bonafide declaration and merely because it is ultimately found to be incorrect will not mean that the valuation was with a bad motive not declared correctly. Penalty under sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act could not, therefore, have been imposed upon the assessee.
Case Title: Shri Rahul Agarwal v. Commissioner CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50395 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that construction sub-contractor cannot escape service tax liability when main contractor is taxable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that the construction of residential complexes was not exempt from service tax duty. Hence, the sub-contractors were liable to discharge their service tax liability on such services provided by them to the main contractor.
Notional Cost Of Maruti's Free Designs Supplied To Vendors Not Dutiable Under Central Excise: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Bosch Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, New Delhi
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. of 50587 of 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that notional cost of Maruti's free designs supplied to vendors not dutiable under Central Excise.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue whether the notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendor should be included in the assessable value of parts or components manufactured by vendor and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely On Income Tax Data In Form 26AS
Case Title: M/s Shree Ganesh Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Indore
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50211 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the service tax demand cannot be based solely on Income Tax Data in Form 26AS without establishing receipt of consideration.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that “Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of difference in the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and those reflected in Form 26AS without examining the reasons for said difference and without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant as reflected in the Form 26AS is the consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement”.
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 55256 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that interest on delayed refund is statutorily mandated after 3 months under Section 11BB Of Central Excise Act.
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that if a duty refund is not processed within three months from the receipt of an application, the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed amount. It empowers Central Government to fix rate between 5-30% through notification. Notification 67/2003 validly issued fixing 6% rate.
Case Title: M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 50720 of 2020
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'perk' products are 'wafer biscuits', not chocolates and are entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether Perk, ULTA Perk, Perk Poppers and Wafer Uncoated Reject manufactured by the assessee are classifiable under Excise Tariff Item 1905 32 11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under ETI 1905 32 90.
Demand U/S 73A Of Finance Act Unsustainable Without Proof Of Service Tax Collection: CESTAT
Case Title: Taj Sats Air Catering Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise, Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51544 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that demand under Section 73A Of Finance Act unsustainable without proof of service tax collection.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the invoice does not indicate any service tax collection by the assessee. The assessee had merely collected VAT and AAI levy from their clients, and no amount representing Service tax has been collected. Consequently, the demand under Section 73A cannot be sustained in respect of 5 of the Show Cause Notices issued to the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Achiever International v. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi II
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 248 of 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods not prohibited under foreign trade policy still require valid IEC (Importer Exporter Codes), import using bogus codes is impermissible.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that there is nothing in the FTDR Act (The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 which provides for any IEC holder to lend his IEC to somebody else or for anyone to import goods borrowing someone else's IEC.
No Service Tax On 'Upfront Fee' Received By DMRC From Customers Under Concession Agreement: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, & Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 55198 of 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on 'upfront fee' received by DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation) from customers under concession agreement.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the “upfront fee” received by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. from various customers under the Concession Agreements entered prior to 1.7.2010 is exigible to service tax on or after 1.7.2010 under “Renting of Immovable Property Services”.
Service Tax To Be Paid By Distributor, Not By Theatre Owner For Film Screening: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M2K Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, (Delhi West)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54027 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax has to be paid by the distributor under “Copy Right Service” for transfer of right by licence to screen the film in the theatre of the owner.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that “the purpose of the agreement and the intention of the parties is for screening of the film in the theatre, which cannot be treated as “Renting of Immovable Property Service”. Moreover, the element of consideration, i.e. the quid pro quo for services, which is a necessary ingredient of any taxable service is absent. The revenue has not been able to establish the service provider and service recipient relationship between the assessee and the distributor. Consequently, no service tax can be levied on the assessee.”
Customs Act | Mere Purchase Of Gold Without Bill Not Enough To Prove Gold Smuggling: CESTAT
Case Title: Rajesh Sehgal v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Preventive, New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51467 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that mere purchase of gold without bill not enough to prove gold smuggling.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) opined that the mere act of purchasing gold without bill is highly insufficient to confirm the grave allegations of conspiring the act of smuggling of gold. The order imposing penalty on the appellants and confiscating their money is not sustainable.
Case Title: M/s Environment Planning & Coordination Organization v. The Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 52116 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that CENVAT Credit can't be claimed on note sheets and sanction orders and required valid documents with mandatory details.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that it is not open to the assessee to take CENVAT credit on the basis of note sheets or sanction orders or invoices which do not have the essential details. The assessee could take CENVAT credit only on the strength of proper and valid documents.
No Service Tax On Target-Based Discounts From Maruti Suzuki To Dealers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Vipul Motors Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52943 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on target-based discounts from Maruti Suzuki to dealers.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the incentives/ discounts received by the dealers of car manufacturer were not taxable under Auxiliary Service (BAS), as they were the part of a business transaction on a principle-to-principle basis.
Customs | Counter Vailing Duty Not Applicable On Import Of Pan Masala Processing Machines: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs – New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51630 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) is not applicable on import of pan masala processing machines.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the assessee is the manufacture of the PanMasala and has imported the machines for cutting / grinding / sorting of Areca Nuts (Supari/seed), the raw material of the Pan Masala. From the description of the three of the machines it becomes apparently clear that assessee has imported machines for carrying out such functions only as are specifically mentioned under CTH 8437200.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that S.148 Income Tax notice issued after 31.03.2021 under old regime invalid despite TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020] extension.
George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that due to COVID-19, the Government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), extending time limits. Accordingly, the time available for the Department to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime, falling during the period from 20.03.2020 till 31.03.2021, were extended till 30.06.2021.
Case Title: M/s. Uflex Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)-New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 51897 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that anti-dumping duty paid by mistake in self-assessment has no legal character of 'duty' and must be refunded.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) stated that the assessee had added the amount of Anti-dumping duty while self-assessing the customs duty liability. Hence the Anti-dumping duty added to the amount of duty while self-assessing the Bill of Entry cannot take the character of duty.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Castrol India Ltd.
Case Number: CENTRAL SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that movement of goods to carrying and forwarding agents in other states is stock transfer, not inter-state sale, central sales tax not leviable.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that “the supplies made from the stockyards/warehouses to the Distributors would be a local sale in the State where the stockyards/warehouses are situated. Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.”
Case Title: M/s J.N. Investments & Trading Company Private Limited v. Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52875 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transfer of approvals/allotments acquired from government involves business support services, attracts service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the approvals and allotments so obtained are not 'profit a prendre' hence cannot be called as benefit arising out of immovable property. Assessees are rightly held to have rendered the Business Support Services to EIL/WWIL.
Case Title: M/s. T.A. Pai Management Institute v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 2374 of 2011
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that placement services to MNCs by the educational trust is liable to service tax under 'manpower recruitment services'.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether the recruiting facility to MNCs and other recruiting organisations by the assessee is liable to service tax under the category of 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service'.
Skill Development Programmes Approved By Govt Qualify For Service Tax Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. M.M. Group v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75950 of 2022
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Skill Development Programme approved by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India is eligible for the exemption from payment of service tax.
K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) stated that the programme undertaken by the assessee is approved by the Government and hence the activity undertaken by them is eligible for the exemption from payment of Service tax, as the said activity are covered under Sl. No. 9A of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012.
Loose Sheets And Private Diaries Not Sufficient Evidence For Excise Duty Demand: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s DD Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Rourkela
Case Number: Excise Appeal Nos. 76871-76872 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that loose sheets and private diaries is not sufficient evidence for excise duty demand.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) stated that mere tallying of certain entries, does not make out these loose sheets to be complete evidence of the purchases and sales and other details pertaining to the assessee.
Case Title: Sivakarthick Raman v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:281/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that salary received by Chinese resident for the services in China not taxable in India, even if credited to the Indian bank account.
Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that “the AO has disallowed the exemption claimed with respect to salary received in India for services rendered in China as taxable in India since the salary has been credited by BMW India Pvt Ltd into the assessee's account at Chennai from the payroll account of Chennai……. The salary income for services rendered in China has been rightly offered tax by the assessee in China.”
Case title: Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee v. DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi
Case no.: ITA No.1609/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Indian National Congress seeking income tax exemption for the income of ₹199.15 crore during the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal rejected the party's claim for exemption on the ground that there was a violation of the conditions in Section 13A of the Income Tax Act. The returns were filed late, the ITAT noted. Calling for a strict interpretation of the exemption clause, the ITAT observed that "the moment there is violation of such a “due” date, section 13A 3rd proviso gets attracted, so as to result in denial of exemption to the political party concerned."
Case Title: Riyaz Sayed Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 85411 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Section 114 AA Customs Act is applicable only for dummy exports made only on paper, not actual export of goods.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) stated that it has been made clear that the imposition of enhanced penalty under Section 114AA of Customs Act is applicable only for serious frauds being committed in cases where no goods are being exported, but only papers are being created for availing the number of benefits under various export promotion schemes.
Case Title: M/s. Raipur Development Authority v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Raipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53203 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that leasing out land for 90 years against one-time payment constitutes transfer of immovable property, exempt from service tax.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the act of transferring the land on lease for a period of 90 years against the one-time premium giving all rights of use, possession and even sale to the developer amounts to fall under the definition of service or under the definition of renting of immovable property.
Goods Used As Implants Or Rehabilitation Aids Are Eligible For Customs Duty Exemption: CESTAT
Case Title: Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 87524 of 2024
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that goods used as implants or rehabilitation aids are eligible for Customs Duty exemption.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that “since, the implants such as repair of knee, hip and other joints, shoulder and various other parts of the body; repair of soft tissue injuries and degenerative conditions of the shoulder etc., are in the nature of instruments/implants described in item (B)(1), the impugned goods are also specifically covered under the List-30 and List-3 of the notifications No. 50/2017-Customs and No.01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate).”
No Excise Duty On Manufacture Of Drip Irrigation System And Its Component Parts: CESTAT
Case Title: Jain Irrigation Systems Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL No. 137 of 2007
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no excise duty on manufacture of drip irrigation system and its component parts.
S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) observed that the impugned goods viz., polytubes, microtubes, HDPE pipes were used for Drip irrigation systems, the appropriate classification in terms of the CBEC circular dated 16.03.1998 would be under sub-heading no. 8424.91, and not under chapter heading no. 39.17
Service Tax Not Leviable On Repairs Of School Building Run By Military Engineering Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chaitanya Constructions v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 3572 of 2012
The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax not leviable on repairs of school building run by military engineering services.
Angad Prasad (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi (Technical Member) opined that the services rendered to Military Engineering Services (MES) was in relation to Sainik School run by them and such building cannot be used for commerce and hence repairs of such building are beyond the scope of service tax.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Cricket Association Clubs's Services To Its Members: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore North
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 25437 of 2013
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) stated that service tax is not leviable on cricket association club services to its members, and further allowed Cenvat Credit on the LED score board.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and R Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) stated that the Commissioner's finding that the said LED score board has no nexus with the taxable service provided viz. Mandap Keeper service and other services is also devoid of merit. Therefore, denial of cenvat credit on LED score board cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/s Play House Motion Pictures Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20876 of 2016
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on transfer or assignment of copyright of film produced under copyright service.
P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether service tax can be levied on exhibition of films under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or demand can be confirmed against transfer or assignment of copyright of the film produced by assessee under Copyright Service.
Case Title: M/s. Onmobile Global Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 20430 of 2021
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 the Mobile Value-Added Services rendered by the assessee can be classified as 'Online Information Database Access and Retrieval Services' (OIDAR) as claimed by the Revenue or are they classifiable as 'Information Technology Software Services' (ITSS) as claimed by the assessee.
Drawback Not Allowed Where Refund Exceeds Market Value Of Goods: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Modak Dyeing & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 53962 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that drawback not allowed where refund exceeds market value of goods.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b), no drawback shall be allowed.
Cenvat Credit Can Be Availed On Sugar Cess Paid On Imported Raw Sugar: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s A B Sugar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana
Case Number: Excise Appeal No. 2696 of 2012
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that cenvat credit can be availed on sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar.
S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of the sugar cess paid on imported raw sugar or not.
Tribunal Has Inherent Authority To Stay Orders Detrimental To Revenue: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. SKOT India
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 40893/2024
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that tribunal has inherent authority to stay orders detrimental to revenue.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) stated that “the power of taxation including its collection being an inherent attribute of sovereignty, the right of revenue to seek a stay of an order determinantal to the collection of taxes, cannot be lightly dismissed….……..we find force in the plea made by the revenue that Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also contains the power for grant of a stay against an order or its part. In any case such a power is inherent in the powers of the Tribunal.”
No Service Tax On Catering Services Provided To Educational Institutions: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Smt. Kala Kudal v. The Commissioner, Central Excise & GST, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51606 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax on catering services provided to educational institutions.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the catering services provided by the assessee to a School with hostel facility are covered under the exemption from payment of service tax given at serial no.9 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
Case Title: Lovely Das v. Addl/JCIT, Nashik
Case Number: I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income.
Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall be given to him for the year in which the income is shown.
Case Title: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Ward-1 (9) Ahmedabad
Case Number: ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime.
Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A. The legislative intent is further clarified by the subsequent amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which is prospective in nature and thereby reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year.
Revenue Cannot Enforce Optional Exemption Notification Without Assessee's Consent: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods v. M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52196 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that revenue cannot enforce optional exemption notification without assessee's consent.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) opined that once an exemption is claimed, the assessee will not get CENVAT credit and may lose some other benefits. Therefore, it cannot be said that the optional exemption notification should be applied even if the assessee does not opt for it or for even for period before it opts for it.
DRI Has Jurisdiction To Issue Show Cause Notice In Drawback Cases: CESTAT
Case Title: Manasa Impex Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 290/2009
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in drawback cases.
P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether DRI Officers have the jurisdiction to issue SCN under Section 75 of the Customs Act read with the relevant Rule.
Property Transfer Between Spouses Without Actual Consideration Not Taxable As Capital Gains: ITAT
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.957/Del/2025
The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that property transfer between spouses without actual consideration is not taxable as capital gains.
S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) were dealing with the issue arises out of addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, being consideration amount mentioned in conveyance deed, executed by late Sunil Kumar, as received, from his wife Bimila Devi, who was alleged purchaser.
Excise Duty Exemption Not Available On Industrial Sewing Machines With In-Built Motors: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Swarup Mechanical Works (Unit 1) v. Additional Director General (Adj.), Director General of GST Intelligence
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 52049 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that excise duty exemption not available on industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (S. No. 15) and its successor Notification No. 1/2011CE dated 1.3.2011 (S. No. 97) on the manufacturing of industrial sewing machines with in-built motors.
Curtain Glass Affixed To Building Not Removable, Hence Not Liable To Central Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi – II v. M/s AGV Alfag Ltd.
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2764 OF 2011
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that curtain glass/ structural glazing affixed to building not removable, hence not liable to central excise duty.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the curtain glass fixed by the assessee in the form of works contract on the walls of buildings can be charged to central excise duty.
Wedding Gifts Can't Be Automatically Treated As 'Unexplained Income' Without Evidence: ITAT
Case Title: Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.779/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that wedding gifts can't be automatically treated as unexplained income without evidence.
Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) stated that the fact that marriage gifts were received prior to the date of marriage itself could not lead to the conclusion that the same are not genuine, when a complete lists of persons from whom the gifts were received was duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and no specific defect had been pointed out with respect to the lists of persons so furnished by the assessee.
Refund Claim On Service Tax For Cancelled Property Bookings Maintainable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54979 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim on service tax for cancelled property bookings maintainable.
The Tribunal stated that the assessee had issued credit notes in respect of service which is not rendered to the customers on account of cancellation of the agreement and hence there was no scope of rendering any services on which the service tax could be levied.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Deposits Made Under Interim Orders: CESTAT
Case Title: Principal Commissioner v. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50318 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can't be levied on deposits made pursuant to interim orders.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were dealing with the issue of whether service tax can be levied on the amounts paid or deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court as per interim orders.
ADG DRI Does Not Have Power To Declare DEPB Scripts Issued By DGFT Null And Void: CESTAT
Case Title: Pankaj Chordia v. The Commissioner of Customs, Cargo Complex
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50453 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that ADG DRI (Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) does not have power to declare DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scripts issued by DGFT Directorate General of Foreign Trade) null and void.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the customs officers who cleared the goods also must have also accepted the DEPB scrips in good faith. At any rate, the DEPB scrips were validly issued by the DGFT and neither the Commissioner nor the DRI has the power to overrule the decision of the DGFT and hold that the DEPB scrips were ab initio null and void.
Refund Of CVD & SAD Paid After GST Introduction Maintainable U/S 142(3) Of CGST Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Rashtriya Metal Industries Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10388 OF 2020-SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund of CVD (Countervailing Duty) & SAD (Special Additional Duty) paid after GST introduction maintainable U/S 142(3) CGST Act.
Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) was addressing the issue of whether refund claim is admissible under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 in lieu of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD, where such CVD & SAD are paid after introduction of GST due to non-fulfilment of export obligations against the goods imported duty free, prior to introduction of GST.
Case Title: IBM India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Final Order No. 21279/2025
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay interest on short reversal of common cenvat credit used for exempted services.
The question before P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was whether interest liability arises on the short reversals of the cenvat credit availed by the assessee on the exempted services.
Preloaded Software On Imported Navigation Devices Liable To Customs Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmi Access Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.2006 of 2012
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that value of preloaded software to be included in assessable value of imported navigation devices and is liable to customs duty.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the value of software preloaded/ etched into the imported navigation systems, be included in the assessable value of the said navigation systems and confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties sustainable.
Case Title: Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number: ITA No. 3097/MUM/2025
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that the assessee is not required to prove negative once documentary evidence is produced.
Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) stated the assessee cannot be made to prove the negative stance for which has been taken by it, right from the very first hearing by bringing on record all the corroborative documentary evidence in respect of its actual and real purchase made by it, forming part of the books of accounts.
Refund Can't Be Rejected On Grounds Of Classification Once Tax Liability Is Settled: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Airport Retail Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurgaon-II
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51677 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund cannot be rejected on grounds of classification once tax liability is settled.
Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and R. Priya (Technical Member) stated that refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, is permissible subject to two conditions: - the claim should have been raised before one year from the relevant date; and the claimant has not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest to any other persons.
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.
Case Title: Habasit Iakoka Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 41230/2013
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the Registry to refer two appeals to the President of CESTAT for the constitution of a Special Bench to hear and decide the matter against a common order.
Citing the principle of “comity of Courts,” the bench, consisting of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member), observed that since the Ahmedabad Bench had already heard an appeal from the same impugned order, it would be appropriate for the Chennai Bench to decline jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Centre Publishes Income Tax Act 2025 In Official Gazette After Presidential Assent
The Ministry of Law and Justice today published the Income Tax Act, 2025, in the Official Gazette after it received the President's assent on Thursday.
The Act consolidates and amends the existing income tax law, replacing the Income Tax Act, 1961. It will come into effect from April 1, 2026.
GST Council Announces Revised Slabs Of 5%, 18% And 40% , Cuts Rates On Small Cars, ACs
The 56th meeting of the GST Council was held on 3rd September, 2025. The GST Council inter-alia made the recommendations relating to changes in GST tax rates.
The changes in GST rates on services will be implemented with effect from 22nd September 2025. The changes in GST rates of all goods except pan masala, gutkha, cigarettes, chewing tobacco products like zarda, unmanufactured tobacco and bidi, will be implemented with effect from 22nd September 2025.
CBDT Extends Due Date For Filing Tax Audit Reports To 31st October
On 25th September, the Central Board of Direct Taxes extended the specified date for filing various audit reports for the Previous Year 2024-25 (Assessment Year 2025-26), from 30th September 2025 to 31st October 2025, for assesses referred to in clause (a) of Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The extension was granted after the Board received multiple representations from various professional associations, including Chartered Accountant bodies. These associations submitted that the taxpayers and professionals were facing difficulties in timely completion of audit reports due to disruptions caused by natural calamities and floods in certain parts of the country.