Tax Weekly Round-Up: September 29 - October 05, 2025
Kapil Dhyani
7 Oct 2025 2:05 PM IST
HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCWho Is Prescribed Authority For Appeal U/S 54 U.P. Water Supply & Sewerage Act? Allahabad High Court Asks StateCase Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 OthersRecently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply...
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to decide appeal against the assessment order passed by JaI Sansthan or any other agency under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act.
Petitioner, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri, Kanpur is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of sophisticated Aircrafts and other Defence equipments and services and caters to the Defence services in India and is controlled by and works under the Ministry of Defence.
Delhi HC
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.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit
Case title: AAI v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 643/2024
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ jurisdiction.”
Case title: Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi East & Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4987/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance. FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “FIRCs need not match transaction by transaction and could even be on a periodic basis, so long as the total benefit that is being claimed by a party is fully supported by the foreign exchange which has been remitted to such party.”
Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport
Case title: Ms. Puja Jayant & Ors. v. Commissioner Of Customs, IGI Airport
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13995/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry into alleged forgery of Customs stamps at the Delhi International Airport.
A division bench comprising justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction after the Department claimed that the Customs stamp on an air traveller's representations in connection with their seized gold was fake.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs
Case Title: M/s R.K. Spat Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by either the Central or the State tax authorities, irrespective of taxpayer assignment, and such actions do not require a separate notification for cross-empowerment.
The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several companies challenging show cause notices issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Kerala HC
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.
Case Title: Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 58 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as income from other sources, at the belated stage of the second appeal to the Tribunal, if the venture of the appellants is accepted, that would lead to the revision of the returns voluntarily filed, which is not possible under the statute.
Case Title: K.G. Rejimon v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO.32 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold that clarificatory orders would only have prospective operation. In other words, the exercise of the power by the Commissioner under Section 94(2) of the Act is independent of the power of the authority to issue clarifications.