Tax Weekly Round-Up: July 14 - July 20, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
21 July 2025 9:10 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.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
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.
Delhi HC
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.
Gujarat HC
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.
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.
Kerala HC
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.
TRIBUNALS
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.