Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 02 - June 08, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
11 Jun 2025 5:10 PM IST
HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCAllahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali's Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST PenaltyCase Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and OthersCase no.: WRIT-TAX NO. 1603 OF 2024The Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of proceedings under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited's 3 plants...
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali's Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Case Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited v. Union of India and Others
Case no.: WRIT-TAX NO. 1603 OF 2024
The Allahabad High Court has directed continuation of proceedings under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Patanjali Ayurved limited's 3 plants even though proceedings under Section 74 of the Act have been dropped against them.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held, “Under the present GST regime, persons who are not liable to pay tax under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act may very well be liable for penalties as described in the twenty-one sub-sections of Section 122(1) and under sub-sections 122(2) and 122(3).”
Delhi HC
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5901/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2068/2015 (and batch)
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia expressed disagreement with a coordinate bench decision in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others (2018) where it was held that provisions of Section 149(1)(c) of the Act would not have any retrospective operation. It was of the view that the above decision was passed in ignorance of Explanation to Section 149, which clarified that the provision would be applicable for “any assessment year” beginning on or before 1st day of April 2012.
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Name: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Case No.: CWP No. 3681 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a notice under Section 148 of Income Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, can't be issued by the assessing officer without giving proper reasons.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja : “The Assessing Officer needs to realise that notice under Section 148 does have serious civil or evil consequences and cannot be passed so lightly and reasons for the same have to be recorded in the order itself.”
Kerala HC
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Corporation of Cochin
Case Number: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that absence of a formal demand notice for property tax during pendency of litigation does not absolve assessee's obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that “The liability to pay the tax once assessed is on the assessee and in a situation where the assessee continuously pays the tax based on the assessment that is conducted, the mere fact that the Corporation did not choose to issue a demand notice for a period when the assessee refrained from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the parties, and in the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, cannot be a reason to prevent the Corporation from collecting the tax amounts at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that import of inverter component without photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs duty exemption.
“Inasmuch as the import was only of the inverter component, without the photo-voltaic cell - a component that was essential for harnessing solar energy, which could then be routed through the inverter system for the supply of electrical energy to the grid, the assessee cannot be seen as eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification…” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that vessel engaged under SEAIOCM agreement qualified as 'foreign going vessel' for exemption under section 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the issue of whether in the backdrop of the terms of engagement of the vessel under the SEAIOCM Agreement, the vessel can be categorized as a foreign going vessel for the purposes of claiming exemption under Section 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 11709 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no provision of rejecting the appeal merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority must decide an appeal by strictly following the mandate contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Section 250, no other meaning can be assigned to the words “points for determination” as it obviously leads to the question that arises for consideration based on the contentions raised in the appeal. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to refer to the points raised in the appeal, and to determine the same by supplying reasons for such determination.”
Patna HC
Assessee Is Permitted To Rectify GSTR 3B On Par With Contents Of GSTR 1: Patna High Court
Case Title: Om Traders v. Union Of India
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16509 of 2024
The Patna High Court stated that the assessee is permitted to rectify GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR 1.
The Division Bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. PD. Singh observed that in the government, there is no system of rectification of any return once it is filed. However, the assessee had submitted application to rectify GST 3B on par with the GSTR 1 relating to certain total taxable value, total integrated tax, total CGST, total SGST. He had committed error insofar as mentioning total taxable value while submitting GSTR 3B and it is not in accordance with the GSTR 1.
Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s. Modi Builders & Realtors (P) Ltd. and Others v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-16 (2), Hyderabad, and Others
Case Number: Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.167 of 2012
The Telangana High Court stated that open terrace/portico excluded while computing build-up area for determining eligibility for deduction under section 80-IB of Income Tax Act.
The Bench consists of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda was addressing the issue of whether the terrace / balcony that is in the form of open to sky or portico / porch area without walls could be added while computing the built-up area for the purpose of determining the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur v. M/S Pelican Quartz Stone
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 50196 OF 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no exporter has an obligation to either anticipate or to conform to views of DRI in classifying goods in shipping bills.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “no exporter has any obligation to anticipate any views of DRI, audit or preventive officers regarding the classification of the goods or to conform to them. The exporter fulfils his obligation once he files the Shipping Bills classifying goods as per his understanding.”
Case Title: Kalpakaaru Projects Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, CGST-Delhi South
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50302 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that actual figures can be considered for determining service tax payable by assessee if books of accounts show higher figures than statutory returns.
The Bench of Justices Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “If the books of accounts show higher figures than the statutory returns the actual figures can be considered for determining the service tax payable by the appellant. However, before considering the figures in the statutory returns and other records, what needs to be ascertained is whether the figures therein represent the value of the taxable services provided or not.”
Case Title: M/s. Roy's Institute of Competitive Examination Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 75230 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on hostel fees received for non-residential courses in coaching institute.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that “the stand-alone hostel charges collected for non-residential courses, have no connection with Commercial Training and Coaching services as defined under section 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, in as much as, even if any student, who do not avail this service, would continue to avail the course offered by the assessee and therefore, the question of payment of service tax does not arise.”