Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 30 - July 06, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
7 July 2025 7:45 PM IST
HIGH COURTSBombay HCIncome Tax | Sales Tax Incentive Under Govt Scheme For Industrial Promotion Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bajaj Auto Limited v. Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2003The Bombay High Court has stated that sales tax incentive under a government scheme for industrial promotion is a capital receipt,...
HIGH COURTS
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kerala HC
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court has stated that goods confiscated under Section 130 GST Act can be released during pendency of appeal if not yet auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case where the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against confiscation order passed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, under Section 130 of the GST Act.
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.
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.
Madras High Court
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.”
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.
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.