Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 05 - May 11, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
12 May 2025 5:20 PM IST
HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCSale Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide Is Liable To Be Taxed At 5%: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and OthersCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12529/2024The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the sale of liquid carbon dioxide is liable to be taxed at 5%.The Bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K...
HIGH COURTS
Andhra Pradesh HC
Sale Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide Is Liable To Be Taxed At 5%: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12529/2024
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the sale of liquid carbon dioxide is liable to be taxed at 5%.
The Bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao were addressing the issue of whether purified liquid Carbon Dioxide gas falls in the unclassified category of goods i.e., Schedule-V to the VAT Act, and is liable to be taxed @ 14.5% instead of 5%.
Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)
Case no.: ITAT/274/2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.
The Top Court had in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited held that notice and/or consequent order issued in the name of a non-existent person renders the entire proceedings and all consequent actions to be a nullity in the eye of law.
Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Sandeep Kaur Gill v. Union of India
Case Number: TAXC No. 98 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that bona fide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions constitutes a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Income Tax Act for not invoking Section 271E of the Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari referring to Section 273B of the Income Tax Act stated that the word 'reasonable cause' has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words 'reasonable cause' would mean a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee.
Delhi HC
Case title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5083/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus differed from the Bombay High Court's decision in Amit Manilal Haria V. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors. (2025) which held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against an employee as he is not a 'taxable' person.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”
Patna HC
Case Title: CTS Industries Limited vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Case No. Case No.1898 of 2023
The Patna High Court has upheld a tax assessment order passed by the State GST Authority, clarifying that once a Proper Officer determines that input tax credit has been wrongfully availed or utilized due to fraud or suppression of facts, they are empowered to issue a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held, “According to sub-section (1), wherever it appears to the Proper Officer that there is any wrongful availment of input tax credit or where the input tax credit has been utilized by reason of fraud or any willful statement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made or who has wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with the interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.”
Case Title: Siddartha Travels v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13297 of 2024
The Patna High Court has recently upheld a service tax demand of ₹25.25 lakh against a travel agency, dismissing its defence that crucial business records had been lost in a fire. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed,
“this petitioner having surrendered his service tax registration had not disclosed the transactions in ST-3. The Taxing Authority were not aware of this, they were looking for cooperation on the part of the petitioner, they called for relevant information and records during investigation but the petitioner did not provide those information to the Taxing Authority. In such circumstance, if the Taxing Authority has taken a view that it is a case of suppression and the facts which have surfaced during investigation were not earlier known to them and they would not have come to know it if the investigation would not have taken place, cannot be found fault with.”
Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Union of India and Another
Case Number: Writ Petition (MB) No. 103 of 2025
The Uttarakhand High Court stated that orders passed under omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 post 8th Oct, 2024 is not valid.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra stated that there was no scope for the department to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Harvinder Kaur Malhotra v. Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50731 Of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax would be chargeable on the commission received by a Distributor from Amway on the products purchased by his sales group.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) observed that “the assessee is an individual, who cannot be faulted if she thought that she was only a dealer; a difference between the purchase price and the sale price or MRP is available to her and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intention to evade service tax. The said issue arose only because Amway called such amount as 'commission' whereas the assessee simply sold the goods to the person who asked a product at a particular MRP…”
Case Title: M/s. Career Point Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52382 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that subscription and redemption of liquid mutual fund units can't be termed as “trading of goods”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of investment in mutual funds does not involve the presence of a service rendered by a service provider towards a recipient of service for some consideration. The activity undertaken would not amount to “service” in terms of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: M/s Oiles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise CGST
Case Number: Excise Appeal No.50314 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that disputed amount paid under protest much after clearance of goods is not covered by unjust enrichment.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) has observed that “once the supplies have already been made, any amount paid thereafter, as tax or deposit, the burden of such amount cannot be passed on to the assessee and, therefore, the test of unjust enrichment is not applicable.”
Case Title: M/s Sannam S-4 Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of CGST
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.50666 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the consultancy services rendered by the assessee to the foreign university/foreign group entity do not fall under the category of “intermediary services” and the assessee are eligible for the benefit of “export of services”.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and (Technical Member) has observed that “it may also be appreciated that the final decision of admitting a student is that of the foreign university. The assessee on the other hand is acting in its independent capacity as a business promoter and does not act as an agent of the university. The fact that the assessee is rendering services on its own account, it cannot be treated as an “intermediary”. On the conclusion that assessee is not an “intermediary”, Rule 9 of POPS Rules will not be applicable and consequently Rule 3 would apply.”